• 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

14 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I talked to my accountant and she says I'm basically screwed. State income tax deduction? No. Real estate tax deduction? No. Mortgage interest deduction? No. Spousal support deduction? No. I don't have kids.

That's a lot of money. WTF? Maybe I should buy a kid. Any of you guys got a kid for sale cheap?

JZK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

JuCo for the first 2. I'll pay that and healthcare.The rest will have to be scholarships and grants. And they'll have to go into agribusiness and run the farm for me afterwords.

I did say cheap.

Actually, he is a horticulture major...  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first year in 30+ years of working that I’m cancelling my 401k contributions due to expected tax increases. Thanks Trump!

Share this post


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

Actually, he is a horticulture major...  :)

That works. The neighbor's daughter is cute and is in vet school. They can hook up and I'll get the farm next door inherited eventually too.

Good plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

That works. The neighbor's daughter is cute and is in vet school. They can hook up and I'll get the farm next door inherited eventually too.

Good plan.

Gotta get by the HS girlfriend frist.  I have been trying to break that up for 4 frigging years.... Ideas welcome, might lower the acquisition costs if utilized...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I talked to my accountant and she says I'm basically screwed. State income tax deduction? No. Real estate tax deduction? No. Mortgage interest deduction? No. Spousal support deduction? No. I don't have kids.

That's a lot of money. WTF? Maybe I should buy a kid. Any of you guys got a kid for sale cheap?

You were expecting something else?

Just wait a bit - the wealth will come trickling down.

Soon - real soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I talked to my accountant and she says I'm basically screwed. State income tax deduction? No. Real estate tax deduction? No. Mortgage interest deduction? No. Spousal support deduction? No. I don't have kids.

That's a lot of money. WTF? Maybe I should buy a kid. Any of you guys got a kid for sale cheap?

How screwed would depend on your level of income.  I see a lot of anecdotes here without specifics on what is actual income.  So, where would you be if the government decided to tax wealth instead of income?

From what you've said the farm isn't a big revenue earner but it would represent wealth.  Once they start taxing that, few people will have enough income to cover it.

It also sounds like your accountant is misinformed.  Those deductions are capped not eliminated.  It will depend on what comes out of resolution though.

Quote
Specifically, the GOP tax plan proposes cutting the cap on mortgage interest deductions on newly purchased homes. Currently, a married couple can deduct interest on mortgages of up to $1,000,000; the GOP plan would cut that to $500,000. Similarly, deductions of state and local property tax would be capped at $10,000.

For our folks in California, there are still places in America where you can actually by a livable home for $500,000.00 or less and property taxes are less than $10,000 per annum.  They are usually in communities who don't go into a lot of debt selling tax-free munis too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I talked to my accountant and she says I'm basically screwed. State income tax deduction? No. Real estate tax deduction? No. Mortgage interest deduction? No. Spousal support deduction? No. I don't have kids.

That's a lot of money. WTF? Maybe I should buy a kid. Any of you guys got a kid for sale cheap?

So you make great money, own your house, have no wife or kids to support and you think you're screwed? 1%er problem right there...  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've have exhibited rather poor judgment and read much of this thread. I will make a few observations.

We have, just a year ago, finished 8 years of progressive government, in which the much touted gap between rich and poor did nothing but grow rapidly. Progressive policies obviously, by direct observation, are ineffective at resolving what many people seem to think is a problem. We also averaged around 2% annual GDP growth, and were told that this is a "new normal".

Similarly, those same 8 years were characterized by slow or non-existent wage growth, which, if you work for wages, would seem to be an important metric. I certainly think that relatively full employment with no wage growth is a problem, as it hinders the upward mobility that many Americans consider a birthright. A lot of people seem bewildered by how we could have essentially full employment without wage growth.

The real problem, IMHO, is not "how rich are the rich", but rather "what are the prospects for everyone who is not rich". Under the previous administration the answer to that second question was "not good".

So, what causes wage growth? This is a simple question, with a fairly simple answer - increases in productivity drive wage growth, that is, more economic output per worker. Making more widgets in 8 hours makes the workers who make those widgets more valuable. But productivity essentially stagnated for 8 years, with persistently under 1% annual productivity growth. How is this possible? https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Bkt_j-sng

Again, the answer is pretty simple, but unpleasant to face. A massive growth in business regulation stifled productivity growth and hence wage growth. The employment growth in most sectors has largely been in compliance staff. I'm a part owner of 2 local banks, and for 8 years the ONLY people we've hired have been compliance people to try and keep us compliant with Dodd-Frank. Similarly, in my small family oil and gas company, we've added no engineers or geologists,  but 2 compliance people. One third of our office staff do nothing but compliance. My peers have the same complaint.

On a more local level, increasing land use regulations may create more jobs for regulatory analysts and bureaucrats, but don't get more buildings built. Examples are everywhere. 

Compliance staff and federal bureaucrats don't make widgets, they don't produce oil, they do NOT contribute to productivity. The people the banks have hired don't generate more loans. They cost money but do not contribute to growth.

Frankly, Democrats in general seem to think that business exists to be taxed, regulated and publicly vilified. How does this help workers? I believe that it is a form of schizophrenia to love employment but hate employers, as seems to be the vogue.

So we come to this year, which has seen rapid growth in the stock market and, so far, consecutive quarters of greater than 3% annualized GDP growth. Why? I do not believe that this is due so much to Trump being President, as it is to Obama not being President anymore. Simply put, businesses are no longer waiting for the next anti-business initiative from Tom Perez, Richard Cordray, and others. To be sure, Trump has helped by delaying or stopping a few regulations, but mostly it's that no new, giant regulatory schemes are being dreamt up.

And so to tax reform.The real goal of this tax reform is economic growth, that means improving the investment climate, and at some point addressing the regulatory climate to restore productivity growth. If this creates jobs and wage growth, and helps ordinary working people, why do you really care if somebody gets rich or richer? Progressives sound as if they would rather the poor stay poor than risk somebody getting richer.  To Democrats, tax reform always seems to mean increasing the EITC, in other words, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, just an increase in transfer payments.

That's been tried and found ineffective. We have 8 years of recent history as proof.

Further, if we, as a society, wish to keep our promises regarding social security, medicare and Medicaid, 2-2.5% GDP growth just ain't gonna cut it. We absolutely must have greater GDP growth to broaden the tax base. Our only choice is to grow our way out of the impending entitlements crisis. Confiscatory taxation will only stifle growth and make future problems worse. Plainly put, grow or die.

Trump, loathsome as he is personally, has made a good start at getting the boot of government off the throat of business. With a pro-growth tax plan, +3% annual GDP growth is not merely possible, but likely. To me, what we did for 8 years under Obama manifestly did not work. ZIRP was fine for the rich, but did nothing for the poor and middle class.  The Obamanomics experiment is done and is a proven failure. That so many wish to cling to failed policies baffles me completely. Static or closed economic models that fail to show growth as a result of tax reforms simply reflect the biases of their creators. Having been involved in computer modeling of both physical processes (oil and gas reservoir modeling), and financial analysis, I can say without reservation that models tell you what you design them to tell you. Any static model will be wrong in the ways intended, as will a dynamic model which treats the US as a closed fiscal/financial system.  For many of the opponents, I suspect they fear not that tax reform will fail, but rather that tax reform will succeed.

In business, if you're doing something and it's not working, do something different. In politics it seems, if you're doing something and it's not working, do more of it. Posting photos of mansions and yachts, and vilifying the rich may feel personally satisfying to those who harbor great resentment towards the success of others, but it does nothing to resolve serious structural fiscal issues that our government faces. Resentment and anger are not solutions.

I really don't care who benefits from tax reform, so long as it spurs GDP growth. If Obama had matched the GPD growth of Reagan or Clinton, the economy would be nearly 20% larger today, with far greater opportunities for workers and higher tax revenues even at lower rates. This is a fact, not an opinion. https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president?ref=patrick.net 

I have limited time, as I am trying to close some deals by Christmas. I have no desire to, and will not engage in debate or discussions on these issues. You may consider this my once every 2-3 years foray into the sewer. Now I need a shower.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I've have exhibited rather poor judgment and read much of this thread. I will make a few observations.

We have, just a year ago, finished 8 years of progressive government, in which the much touted gap between rich and poor did nothing but grow rapidly. Progressive policies obviously, by direct observation, are ineffective at resolving what many people seem to think is a problem. We also averaged around 2% annual GDP growth, and were told that this is a "new normal".

Similarly, those same 8 years were characterized by slow or non-existent wage growth, which, if you work for wages, would seem to be an important metric. I certainly think that relatively full employment with no wage growth is a problem, as it hinders the upward mobility that many Americans consider a birthright. A lot of people seem bewildered by how we could have essentially full employment without wage growth.

The real problem, IMHO, is not "how rich are the rich", but rather "what are the prospects for everyone who is not rich". Under the previous administration the answer to that second question was "not good".

So, what causes wage growth? This is a simple question, with a fairly simple answer - increases in productivity drive wage growth, that is, more economic output per worker. Making more widgets in 8 hours makes the workers who make those widgets more valuable. But productivity essentially stagnated for 8 years, with persistently under 1% annual productivity growth. How is this possible? https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Bkt_j-sng

Again, the answer is pretty simple, but unpleasant to face. A massive growth in business regulation stifled productivity growth and hence wage growth. The employment growth in most sectors has largely been in compliance staff. I'm a part owner of 2 local banks, and for 8 years the ONLY people we've hired have been compliance people to try and keep us compliant with Dodd-Frank. Similarly, in my small family oil and gas company, we've added no engineers or geologists,  but 2 compliance people. One third of our office staff do nothing but compliance. My peers have the same complaint.

On a more local level, increasing land use regulations may create more jobs for regulatory analysts and bureaucrats, but don't get more buildings built. Examples are everywhere. 

Compliance staff and federal bureaucrats don't make widgets, they don't produce oil, they do NOT contribute to productivity. The people the banks have hired don't generate more loans. They cost money but do not contribute to growth.

Frankly, Democrats in general seem to think that business exists to be taxed, regulated and publicly vilified. How does this help workers? I believe that it is a form of schizophrenia to love employment but hate employers, as seems to be the vogue.

So we come to this year, which has seen rapid growth in the stock market and, so far, consecutive quarters of greater than 3% annualized GDP growth. Why? I do not believe that this is due so much to Trump being President, as it is to Obama not being President anymore. Simply put, businesses are no longer waiting for the next anti-business initiative from Tom Perez, Richard Cordray, and others. To be sure, Trump has helped by delaying or stopping a few regulations, but mostly it's that no new, giant regulatory schemes are being dreamt up.

And so to tax reform.The real goal of this tax reform is economic growth, that means improving the investment climate, and at some point addressing the regulatory climate to restore productivity growth. If this creates jobs and wage growth, and helps ordinary working people, why do you really care if somebody gets rich or richer? Progressives sound as if they would rather the poor stay poor than risk somebody getting richer.  To Democrats, tax reform always seems to mean increasing the EITC, in other words, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, just an increase in transfer payments.

That's been tried and found ineffective. We have 8 years of recent history as proof.

Further, if we, as a society, wish to keep our promises regarding social security, medicare and Medicaid, 2-2.5% GDP growth just ain't gonna cut it. We absolutely must have greater GDP growth to broaden the tax base. Our only choice is to grow our way out of the impending entitlements crisis. Confiscatory taxation will only stifle growth and make future problems worse. Plainly put, grow or die.

Trump, loathsome as he is personally, has made a good start at getting the boot of government off the throat of business. With a pro-growth tax plan, +3% annual GDP growth is not merely possible, but likely. To me, what we did for 8 years under Obama manifestly did not work. ZIRP was fine for the rich, but did nothing for the poor and middle class.  The Obamanomics experiment is done and is a proven failure. That so many wish to cling to failed policies baffles me completely. Static or closed economic models that fail to show growth as a result of tax reforms simply reflect the biases of their creators. Having been involved in computer modeling of both physical processes (oil and gas reservoir modeling), and financial analysis, I can say without reservation that models tell you what you design them to tell you. Any static model will be wrong in the ways intended, as will a dynamic model which treats the US as a closed fiscal/financial system.  For many of the opponents, I suspect they fear not that tax reform will fail, but rather that tax reform will succeed.

In business, if you're doing something and it's not working, do something different. In politics it seems, if you're doing something and it's not working, do more of it. Posting photos of mansions and yachts, and vilifying the rich may feel personally satisfying to those who harbor great resentment towards the success of others, but it does nothing to resolve serious structural fiscal issues that our government faces. Resentment and anger are not solutions.

I really don't care who benefits from tax reform, so long as it spurs GDP growth. If Obama had matched the GPD growth of Reagan or Clinton, the economy would be nearly 20% larger today, with far greater opportunities for workers and higher tax revenues even at lower rates. This is a fact, not an opinion. https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president?ref=patrick.net 

I have limited time, as I am trying to close some deals by Christmas. I have no desire to, and will not engage in debate or discussions on these issues. You may consider this my once every 2-3 years foray into the sewer. Now I need a shower.

That was awesome! well done sir.

Share this post


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

JZK, you just disproved your own point.  Your entire argument relies in the above.  It relies on the "Good Will" of the rich to invest in areas that help the middle class.  It has been proven over and over again that that does not work.  The rich will simply reinvest the $$ into the market where they will reap all the benefits and pocket the lot.  If someone calls them on it they will simply move the $$ off shore and claim that there was no $$ in the first place.  Trickle down was proven to be ineffectual and ended up costing the country it's entire middle class.  The rich "Good Will" is only beholden to their bank accounts period.    

Really?  Then why can you buy a 64GB cell phone for $149?  Why can you buy a 55" flat screen TV for $315?

Why can you buy a solid laptop on Amazon for $300?

Why aren't those rich guys reinvesting into the market like you say?

Because you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.  Not the first clue.

Clueless, right. Instead of answering again with "Hong Kong,"  I will address your statements.

Who makes more money from the 64GB cell phone...... the engineer(s) who designed it, the line workers who produced it, or the chair warmers who sit in the board room?

Corporate officers themselves are not the crux of the problem, the attitude that they have of raking of the most possible gains for themselves is the problem. This is what has been taught in MBA school for about 25 years now. And the low personal income tax exaggerates the problem.

Look back to the less regulated times of the early Industrial Revolution. A golden era, right?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, Good to hear a real and seemingly knowledgable viewpoint.  IMHO, "Obanomics" as you put it were restrained by the gop's fuckery and insistence on killing anything the Obama camp came up with, regardless of its purpose, stagnating govt for 8 years and leading to the mess we have today.  I find it funny that the repubs are using the exact wording that dems used for ocare.  "It is not a finished product and will need some tweaking".  When one party stonewalls the tweaking, well, nothing is gonna work as they will soon find out.  

Share this post


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

Clueless, right. Instead of answering again with "Hong Kong,"  I will address your statements.

Who makes more money from the 64GB cell phone...... the engineer(s) who designed it, the line workers who produced it, or the chair warmers who sit in the board room?

Corporate officers themselves are not the crux of the problem, the attitude that they have of raking of the most possible gains for themselves is the problem. This is what has been taught in MBA school for about 25 years now. And the low personal income tax exaggerates the problem.

Look back to the less regulated times of the early Industrial Revolution. A golden era, right?

-DSK

Who's fucking business is it who makes the money?  

Are the line workers there on a voluntary basis or not?  Can they quit and work elsewhere if they choose?

If you don't like how a company operates, start your own company and pay your workers more.

Your solution is to have people like you set all of the salaries? 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

So you make great money, own your house, have no wife or kids to support and you think you're screwed? 1%er problem right there...  

Where did I say I make great money? I did before the recession but my cheese got moved.

Share this post


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

Specifically, the GOP tax plan proposes cutting the cap on mortgage interest deductions on newly purchased homes. Currently, a married couple can deduct interest on mortgages of up to $1,000,000; the GOP plan would cut that to $500,000. Similarly, deductions of state and local property tax would be capped at $10,000.

Not married. Live in IL (taxes). And I could take my 'maintenance' (call it what you like...spousal support or whatever). That shit hurts already. Now I can't deduct and she'll be paying taxes on it too. Double taxes everywhere. Get paycheck. Taxes taken out. Pay for all that stuff above? Taxable again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've have exhibited rather poor judgment and read much of this thread. I will make a few observations.

We have, just a year ago, finished 8 years of progressive government, in which the much touted gap between rich and poor did nothing but grow rapidly. Progressive policies obviously, by direct observation, are ineffective at resolving what many people seem to think is a problem. We also averaged around 2% annual GDP growth, and were told that this is a "new normal".

Similarly, those same 8 years were characterized by slow or non-existent wage growth, which, if you work for wages, would seem to be an important metric. I certainly think that relatively full employment with no wage growth is a problem, as it hinders the upward mobility that many Americans consider a birthright. A lot of people seem bewildered by how we could have essentially full employment without wage growth.

The real problem, IMHO, is not "how rich are the rich", but rather "what are the prospects for everyone who is not rich". Under the previous administration the answer to that second question was "not good".

So, what causes wage growth? This is a simple question, with a fairly simple answer - increases in productivity drive wage growth, that is, more economic output per worker. Making more widgets in 8 hours makes the workers who make those widgets more valuable. But productivity essentially stagnated for 8 years, with persistently under 1% annual productivity growth. How is this possible? https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Bkt_j-sng

Again, the answer is pretty simple, but unpleasant to face. A massive growth in business regulation stifled productivity growth and hence wage growth. The employment growth in most sectors has largely been in compliance staff. I'm a part owner of 2 local banks, and for 8 years the ONLY people we've hired have been compliance people to try and keep us compliant with Dodd-Frank. Similarly, in my small family oil and gas company, we've added no engineers or geologists,  but 2 compliance people. One third of our office staff do nothing but compliance. My peers have the same complaint.

On a more local level, increasing land use regulations may create more jobs for regulatory analysts and bureaucrats, but don't get more buildings built. Examples are everywhere. 

Compliance staff and federal bureaucrats don't make widgets, they don't produce oil, they do NOT contribute to productivity. The people the banks have hired don't generate more loans. They cost money but do not contribute to growth.

Frankly, Democrats in general seem to think that business exists to be taxed, regulated and publicly vilified. How does this help workers? I believe that it is a form of schizophrenia to love employment but hate employers, as seems to be the vogue.

So we come to this year, which has seen rapid growth in the stock market and, so far, consecutive quarters of greater than 3% annualized GDP growth. Why? I do not believe that this is due so much to Trump being President, as it is to Obama not being President anymore. Simply put, businesses are no longer waiting for the next anti-business initiative from Tom Perez, Richard Cordray, and others. To be sure, Trump has helped by delaying or stopping a few regulations, but mostly it's that no new, giant regulatory schemes are being dreamt up.

And so to tax reform.The real goal of this tax reform is economic growth, that means improving the investment climate, and at some point addressing the regulatory climate to restore productivity growth. If this creates jobs and wage growth, and helps ordinary working people, why do you really care if somebody gets rich or richer? Progressives sound as if they would rather the poor stay poor than risk somebody getting richer.  To Democrats, tax reform always seems to mean increasing the EITC, in other words, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, just an increase in transfer payments.

That's been tried and found ineffective. We have 8 years of recent history as proof.

Further, if we, as a society, wish to keep our promises regarding social security, medicare and Medicaid, 2-2.5% GDP growth just ain't gonna cut it. We absolutely must have greater GDP growth to broaden the tax base. Our only choice is to grow our way out of the impending entitlements crisis. Confiscatory taxation will only stifle growth and make future problems worse. Plainly put, grow or die.

Trump, loathsome as he is personally, has made a good start at getting the boot of government off the throat of business. With a pro-growth tax plan, +3% annual GDP growth is not merely possible, but likely. To me, what we did for 8 years under Obama manifestly did not work. ZIRP was fine for the rich, but did nothing for the poor and middle class.  The Obamanomics experiment is done and is a proven failure. That so many wish to cling to failed policies baffles me completely. Static or closed economic models that fail to show growth as a result of tax reforms simply reflect the biases of their creators. Having been involved in computer modeling of both physical processes (oil and gas reservoir modeling), and financial analysis, I can say without reservation that models tell you what you design them to tell you. Any static model will be wrong in the ways intended, as will a dynamic model which treats the US as a closed fiscal/financial system.  For many of the opponents, I suspect they fear not that tax reform will fail, but rather that tax reform will succeed.

In business, if you're doing something and it's not working, do something different. In politics it seems, if you're doing something and it's not working, do more of it. Posting photos of mansions and yachts, and vilifying the rich may feel personally satisfying to those who harbor great resentment towards the success of others, but it does nothing to resolve serious structural fiscal issues that our government faces. Resentment and anger are not solutions.

I really don't care who benefits from tax reform, so long as it spurs GDP growth. If Obama had matched the GPD growth of Reagan or Clinton, the economy would be nearly 20% larger today, with far greater opportunities for workers and higher tax revenues even at lower rates. This is a fact, not an opinion. https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president?ref=patrick.net 

I have limited time, as I am trying to close some deals by Christmas. I have no desire to, and will not engage in debate or discussions on these issues. You may consider this my once every 2-3 years foray into the sewer. Now I need a shower.

Interesting perspective, but I dunno what you mean by "the Obamanomics experiment." Obama managed to do very little in 2010~2016 that wasn't undone by the Republican Congress. And you may also remember that in the wake of massive fraud and abuse by financial institutions, there really wasn't a whole lot of reason to think that LESS REGULATION was going to help anybody.

What's you take on the CFPB? Banks that play unauthorized (or flat illegal) games with their depositors money ought to be forced IMHO to make good the customers' losses. Having had this happen to me personally, I am not on the side of letting banks do whatever the fuck they want. Having worked in industry, I am also not in favor of having factories and power plants do whatever the fuck the board chair-warmers want with regard to pollution or worker safety.

Back the "good old days" a CEO might take home 100 times what his line workers did. And he paid a marginal tax rate far higher. Now we have corporate officers taking home thousands of times what their line workers do. And they want more.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:
7 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Where did I say I make great money? I did before the recession but my cheese got moved.

Sorry to hear that. I hope you find new cheese soon.

It's better than having somebody cut the cheese

-DSK

Share this post


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

Interesting perspective, but I dunno what you mean by "the Obamanomics experiment." Obama managed to do very little in 2010~2016 that wasn't undone by the Republican Congress. And you may also remember that in the wake of massive fraud and abuse by financial institutions, there really wasn't a whole lot of reason to think that LESS REGULATION was going to help anybody.

What's you take on the CFPB? Banks that play unauthorized (or flat illegal) games with their depositors money ought to be forced IMHO to make good the customers' losses. Having had this happen to me personally, I am not on the side of letting banks do whatever the fuck they want. Having worked in industry, I am also not in favor of having factories and power plants do whatever the fuck the board chair-warmers want with regard to pollution or worker safety.

Back the "good old days" a CEO might take home 100 times what his line workers did. And he paid a marginal tax rate far higher. Now we have corporate officers taking home thousands of times what their line workers do. And they want more.

-DSK

What has economic growth got to do with how much the CEO makes? Why are you so stuck on that. If the CEO is making $10M/yr but grows the company 10x and employs an additional 1000 employees who cares? 1000 working class folks now have jobs! win/win.

Share this post


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

Interesting perspective, but I dunno what you mean by "the Obamanomics experiment." Obama managed to do very little in 2010~2016 that wasn't undone by the Republican Congress. And you may also remember that in the wake of massive fraud and abuse by financial institutions, there really wasn't a whole lot of reason to think that LESS REGULATION was going to help anybody.

What's you take on the CFPB? Banks that play unauthorized (or flat illegal) games with their depositors money ought to be forced IMHO to make good the customers' losses. Having had this happen to me personally, I am not on the side of letting banks do whatever the fuck they want. Having worked in industry, I am also not in favor of having factories and power plants do whatever the fuck the board chair-warmers want with regard to pollution or worker safety.

Back the "good old days" a CEO might take home 100 times what his line workers did. And he paid a marginal tax rate far higher. Now we have corporate officers taking home thousands of times what their line workers do. And they want more.

-DSK

CEOs generally tend to get paid what they are worth.  Nothing is perfect, but that is the tendency.  There is a market.  If the board of directors can find a better CEO at a lower price, they will.  Why wouldn't they?  They could save the company money and give themselves raises.  It is the same concept as why LeBron James is worth so much.  Basketball is a big business, so big names draw in the coin.  

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

CEOs generally tend to get paid what they are worth.  Nothing is perfect, but that is the tendency.  There is a market.  If the board of directors can find a better CEO at a lower price, they will.  Why wouldn't they?  They could save the company money and give themselves raises.  It is the same concept as why LeBron James is worth so much.  Basketball is a big business, so big names draw in the coin.  

Having spent a lot of time in the corporate world, 'better' in a relative term.

Growing businesses want CEOs that are connected.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of investors with deep pockets that will call them back.  They spend most of their time on the road raising money.

Stagnant businesses want CEOs that are pedigreed.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of finance/banking types that will call them back.  They spend most of their time making sure no one does anything too outside the official plan.

The simple reality is that most boards are made up of friends and former colleagues that meet occasionally to make sure that the CEO is following 'the plan' - whatever plan that is - and provide different lists of contacts depending on the needs of the day.

That is the reality of big business.  It's about networks of people who are willing to cut deals.  Is that 'value'?  Sure.  Its even a unique value.  The simple fact is they have the phone number to 'XXXX'  and you don't nor are you likely to ever get it. 

Has the person done anything to 'deserve' the money they get?  Statisticians say the birth lottery is the primary determination at that level and from my experience, I agree.  I've met some pretty dynamic CEOs that i'd follow pretty much anywhere - and I've met CEOs that primary skill seems to be 'tallness' and the ability to choose the carpet color based upon the three swatches their executive secretary picked out earlier in the day.  In other words, they're pretty much an average distribution of people who've been born into a certain level of social status and attended the right school or had the right contact.

BTW:  Chase down the 'relationship tree' of Hollywood and  you'll see the same thing.

 

Share this post


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

Having spent a lot of time in the corporate world, 'better' in a relative term.

Growing businesses want CEOs that are connected.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of investors with deep pockets that will call them back.  They spend most of their time on the road raising money.

Stagnant businesses want CEOs that are pedigreed.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of finance/banking types that will call them back.  They spend most of their time making sure no one does anything too outside the official plan.

The simple reality is that most boards are made up of friends and former colleagues that meet occasionally to make sure that the CEO is following 'the plan' - whatever plan that is - and provide different lists of contacts depending on the needs of the day.

That is the reality of big business.  It's about networks of people who are willing to cut deals.  Is that 'value'?  Sure.  Its even a unique value.  The simple fact is they have the phone number to 'XXXX'  and you don't nor are you likely to ever get it. 

Has the person done anything to 'deserve' the money they get?  Statisticians say the birth lottery is the primary determination at that level and from my experience, I agree.  I've met some pretty dynamic CEOs that i'd follow pretty much anywhere - and I've met CEOs that primary skill seems to be 'tallness' and the ability to choose the carpet color based upon the three swatches their executive secretary picked out earlier in the day.

 

That is the marketplace.  "Worth" means what the market is willing to pay.  If the company is wasting money, then it is a profit opportunity for you to compete against it.  It happens every day.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

That is the marketplace.  "Worth" means what the market is willing to pay.  If the company is wasting money, then it is a profit opportunity for you to compete against it.  It happens every day.

 

Where the 'pure free market' that you're advocating breaks down is under the pressures of behavioral economics.  There is a 'fairness' component who's value radically shifts over time - even at the c-suite level.

A great example is comparing the Greek economy to the German economy.  How much is a 'vacation' worth?  The purist argument is 'whatever you can get for it' which is fine but isn't going to stop people from burning down shops or government buildings. Society just doesn't work that way.

Share this post


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

 

Where the 'pure free market' that you're advocating breaks down is under the pressures of behavioral economics.  There is a 'fairness' component who's value radically shifts over time - even at the c-suite level.

A great example is comparing the Greek economy to the German economy.  How much is a 'vacation' worth?  The purist argument is 'whatever you can get for it' which is fine but isn't going to stop people from burning down shops or government buildings. Society just doesn't work that way.

If someone is willing to pay a price for a good or service,  who are you to say it is too high? 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

that the market for the "c-suite" doesn't behave in the same manner other far more rational and competitive markets do doesn't concern jerkz.

Sounds like a business opportunity for you.   Start a "reasonably priced"  ceo placement firm.   You will clean up.   Or not. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, austin1972 said:

Not married. Live in IL (taxes). And I could take my 'maintenance' (call it what you like...spousal support or whatever). That shit hurts already. Now I can't deduct and she'll be paying taxes on it too.

That's the price you pay for being sinners and getting divorced.

Think of it as Gods' punishment - those right wing evangelical religious zealots do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Be safe.

And for the clueless amongst you all, this is cmilliken's polite way of saying "I don't think you're worth talking to anymore, moron, we're done here". Trust me :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Interesting perspective, but I dunno what you mean by "the Obamanomics experiment." Obama managed to do very little in 2010~2016 that wasn't undone by the Republican Congress. And you may also remember that in the wake of massive fraud and abuse by financial institutions, there really wasn't a whole lot of reason to think that LESS REGULATION was going to help anybody.

What's you take on the CFPB? Banks that play unauthorized (or flat illegal) games with their depositors money ought to be forced IMHO to make good the customers' losses. Having had this happen to me personally, I am not on the side of letting banks do whatever the fuck they want. Having worked in industry, I am also not in favor of having factories and power plants do whatever the fuck the board chair-warmers want with regard to pollution or worker safety.

Back the "good old days" a CEO might take home 100 times what his line workers did. And he paid a marginal tax rate far higher. Now we have corporate officers taking home thousands of times what their line workers do. And they want more.

-DSK

That's exactly the point. CL operates in two highly regulated sectors - oil and finance - so his experience is probably particularly painful.

BUT

You have to ask yourself why those regulations exist.

They were created in response to repeated bad acting on the part of the affected industries - ecological disasters on the part of the oil industry and financial disasters on the part of the financial industry. We currently have a bunch of liabilities that the government will have to pay for that were left behind by defunct oil exploration outfits. Anybody remember the S&L fiasco? How about the Sub-Prime mess and all the quasi-criminal offshoots of it that TARP (you) had to pay for?

Regulations are not created out of whole cloth - they are always a response to an unacceptable situation.

Thinking that they can be eliminated wholesale with no consequences is delusional. The usual suspects will make more money and the taxpayer will pay for it - just as happened countless times in the past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And for the clueless amongst you all, this is cmilliken's polite way of saying "I don't think you're worth talking to anymore, moron, we're done here". Trust me :lol: 

He should have started out with those two words instead of trying rationality with JerKZ and his elk.

Think about all the wasted bandwidth that would have been saved.

Share this post


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

And for the clueless amongst you all, this is cmilliken's polite way of saying "I don't think you're worth talking to anymore, moron, we're done here". Trust me :lol: 

Yet here you are ignoring me over and over and over.  You sure do put quite a bit of effort into ignoring people.

Clown.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

He should have started out with those two words instead of trying rationality with JerKZ and his elk.

Think about all the wasted bandwidth that would have been saved.

Well, to be fair, the JiZKid has been absent for some time - not everyone has encountered his "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" routine before. It's really only after you start making him back up his casual assertions he shows how shallow his "arguments" (such as they are) happen to be. It's after that becomes obvious, he ramps up his levels of asshole. And then you really need to disengage - his obsessions can get seriously creepy. Way worse than Tom Ray's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, to be fair, the JiZKid has been absent for some time - not everyone has encountered his "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" routine before. It's really only after you start making him back up his casual assertions he shows how shallow his "arguments" (such as they are) happen to be. It's after that becomes obvious, he ramps up his levels of asshole. And then you really need to disengage - his obsessions can get seriously creepy. Way worse than Tom Ray's...

I dunno bout that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, to be fair, the JiZKid has been absent for some time - not everyone has encountered his "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" routine before. It's really only after you start making him back up his casual assertions he shows how shallow his "arguments" (such as they are) happen to be. It's after that becomes obvious, he ramps up his levels of asshole. And then you really need to disengage - his obsessions can get seriously creepy. Way worse than Tom Ray's...

More ignoring I see, yet with your head firmly in the sand.  That is, after all, where it belongs.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trickle Down works! Trent Franks offered to trickle $5,000,000 down to a female subordinate for accepting trickles of spooge that “might” lead to a surrogate pregnancy. This is the brilliant future!

Share this post


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

Trickle Down works! Trent Franks offered to trickle $5,000,000 down to a female subordinate for accepting trickles of spooge that “might” lead to a surrogate pregnancy. This is the brilliant future!

Really that’s the best post you can offer on an economic thread. 

Share this post


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

You mean the government stepped in to drive people to the cities interfering with the market?  You think I support that kind of government action?  Government has a long history of fucking over poor people.  That is my point.  That is half my case.  Thank you for helping me make it.  I trust the people way more than I trust the government making decisions for the people.

If you want to make an argument about something, make it.  Let's dispense with the childish games, eh?

You might learn something.

I'm supposed to argue with you about something you admit (& demonstrate) that you have no knowledge of?

That makes no sense at all.

 

I don't argue about music with deaf people.  I don't argue about photography or painting with blind people.

That's not a childish game, it's just common sense.

 

Share this post


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

I'm supposed to argue with you about something you admit (& demonstrate) that you have no knowledge of?

That makes no sense at all.

I don't argue about music with deaf people.  I don't argue about photography or painting with blind people.

That's not a childish game, it's just common sense.

 

Yeah, whatever you say.  Thanks for proving my point for me.  The market fails when government interferes with it.  Get government out of it.

Was the industrial revolution a positive step for mankind or a negative one?  Did the lives of ordinary people improve throughout it or not?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Yeah, whatever you say.  Thanks for proving my point for me.  The market fails when government interferes with it.  Get government out of it.

Was the industrial revolution a positive step for mankind or a negative one?  Did the lives of ordinary people improve throughout it or not?

sigh.

"The government" in those days, was still basically the same thing as "the wealthy".

And the Enclosure Act was just the final stage of something that had been going on for 400 years already. 

Point being: your original statement was bullshit.  No, the workers couldn't just go back to their farms.  They would starve.

 

 

Share this post


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

sigh.

"The government" in those days, was still basically the same thing as "the wealthy".

And the Enclosure Act was just the final stage of something that had been going on for 400 years already. 

Point being: your original statement was bullshit.  No, the workera couldn't just go back to their farms.  They would starve.

 

 

Only because of the government.  Get the government out.  It is not the fault of the market that the government was fucking over those poor people.

People came to the US during the industrial revolution in waves to improve their lives.  And they did.  And they kept coming.  Why did they keep coming if conditions were worse than the ones that they were leaving behind?

And in the US, anyone could go west and farm.  Or hunt.  Or forage for berries.  Why did people freely choose instead to work for the railroad or the coal mine?

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

sigh.

"The government" in those days, was still basically the same thing as "the wealthy".

And the Enclosure Act was just the final stage of something that had been going on for 400 years already. 

Point being: your original statement was bullshit.  No, the workers couldn't just go back to their farms.  They would starve.

 

 

So since the he said she said is so important to you, let's unpack the series of statements.

My premise is that the free market brought humans from where they were 200 years ago to where we are now - with double the lifespan, no more famines, cell phones, flat screen Tvs, refrigeration etc.

Sloop then made the statement that free markets caused the miserable conditions of 150 years ago.

Then I said that the miserable conditions of 150 years ago were better than the even more miserable conditions of 200 years ago.  150 years ago, lifespans were increasing.  The life of the common man was increasing.

Then you pointed out that in England, workers didn't have a choice.  They couldn't go back to subsistence farming/foraging for berries or whatever.  

So what?  Did the market cause that?  Or did those enclosure laws you mentioned cause that in England?

By definition, Sloop is thereby wrong because it was the laws that caused workers no to have a choice, not the market.

Citing one place in the world where workers were fucked over by the government does not prove that the market caused those conditions.  As you showed everyone with your vast knowledge, the government did.  Thanks again for proving my point.

Futhermore, sloop's further contention is that if we rely on the market, that those conditions will re-appear.  Do you believe that as well?

If we abolished the child labor laws, would all the kids flow back into the factories tomorrow?

If we abolished overtime, would people be forced to work 80 hour work weeks without overtime?

 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

Really that’s the best post you can offer on an economic thread. 

Yeah. I get that the thread is focusing on pseudo-economic anecdotes. Heh. That your refurbished trickle down economy will consist of the one-percenters not so much as creating wealth as throwing crumbs to the masses...mostly in the form of purchasing prostitution and the other dark products of the 99% economy that support the carefree life at the top. Don’t need any questionable anecdotes, just read the headlines to get a feel of what the one-percent’s ambitions consist of. It is not investing in infrastructure. It is not increased R&D. Nothing that will benefit the lower classes.

Franks has a spare 5 million with which to buy sex and perhaps a child. Holy crap. People at the other end of the economic ladder have even figured out how to get sex and children for less money, no? Brilliant, your representatives. These idiots are expected to distribute wealth in a smart fashion. Heh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've have exhibited rather poor judgment and read much of this thread. I will make a few observations.

We have, just a year ago, finished 8 years of progressive government, in which the much touted gap between rich and poor did nothing but grow rapidly. Progressive policies obviously, by direct observation, are ineffective at resolving what many people seem to think is a problem. We also averaged around 2% annual GDP growth, and were told that this is a "new normal".

Similarly, those same 8 years were characterized by slow or non-existent wage growth, which, if you work for wages, would seem to be an important metric. I certainly think that relatively full employment with no wage growth is a problem, as it hinders the upward mobility that many Americans consider a birthright. A lot of people seem bewildered by how we could have essentially full employment without wage growth.

The real problem, IMHO, is not "how rich are the rich", but rather "what are the prospects for everyone who is not rich". Under the previous administration the answer to that second question was "not good".

So, what causes wage growth? This is a simple question, with a fairly simple answer - increases in productivity drive wage growth, that is, more economic output per worker. Making more widgets in 8 hours makes the workers who make those widgets more valuable. But productivity essentially stagnated for 8 years, with persistently under 1% annual productivity growth. How is this possible? https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Bkt_j-sng

Again, the answer is pretty simple, but unpleasant to face. A massive growth in business regulation stifled productivity growth and hence wage growth. The employment growth in most sectors has largely been in compliance staff. I'm a part owner of 2 local banks, and for 8 years the ONLY people we've hired have been compliance people to try and keep us compliant with Dodd-Frank. Similarly, in my small family oil and gas company, we've added no engineers or geologists,  but 2 compliance people. One third of our office staff do nothing but compliance. My peers have the same complaint.

On a more local level, increasing land use regulations may create more jobs for regulatory analysts and bureaucrats, but don't get more buildings built. Examples are everywhere. 

Compliance staff and federal bureaucrats don't make widgets, they don't produce oil, they do NOT contribute to productivity. The people the banks have hired don't generate more loans. They cost money but do not contribute to growth.

Frankly, Democrats in general seem to think that business exists to be taxed, regulated and publicly vilified. How does this help workers? I believe that it is a form of schizophrenia to love employment but hate employers, as seems to be the vogue.

So we come to this year, which has seen rapid growth in the stock market and, so far, consecutive quarters of greater than 3% annualized GDP growth. Why? I do not believe that this is due so much to Trump being President, as it is to Obama not being President anymore. Simply put, businesses are no longer waiting for the next anti-business initiative from Tom Perez, Richard Cordray, and others. To be sure, Trump has helped by delaying or stopping a few regulations, but mostly it's that no new, giant regulatory schemes are being dreamt up.

And so to tax reform.The real goal of this tax reform is economic growth, that means improving the investment climate, and at some point addressing the regulatory climate to restore productivity growth. If this creates jobs and wage growth, and helps ordinary working people, why do you really care if somebody gets rich or richer? Progressives sound as if they would rather the poor stay poor than risk somebody getting richer.  To Democrats, tax reform always seems to mean increasing the EITC, in other words, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, just an increase in transfer payments.

That's been tried and found ineffective. We have 8 years of recent history as proof.

Further, if we, as a society, wish to keep our promises regarding social security, medicare and Medicaid, 2-2.5% GDP growth just ain't gonna cut it. We absolutely must have greater GDP growth to broaden the tax base. Our only choice is to grow our way out of the impending entitlements crisis. Confiscatory taxation will only stifle growth and make future problems worse. Plainly put, grow or die.

Trump, loathsome as he is personally, has made a good start at getting the boot of government off the throat of business. With a pro-growth tax plan, +3% annual GDP growth is not merely possible, but likely. To me, what we did for 8 years under Obama manifestly did not work. ZIRP was fine for the rich, but did nothing for the poor and middle class.  The Obamanomics experiment is done and is a proven failure. That so many wish to cling to failed policies baffles me completely. Static or closed economic models that fail to show growth as a result of tax reforms simply reflect the biases of their creators. Having been involved in computer modeling of both physical processes (oil and gas reservoir modeling), and financial analysis, I can say without reservation that models tell you what you design them to tell you. Any static model will be wrong in the ways intended, as will a dynamic model which treats the US as a closed fiscal/financial system.  For many of the opponents, I suspect they fear not that tax reform will fail, but rather that tax reform will succeed.

In business, if you're doing something and it's not working, do something different. In politics it seems, if you're doing something and it's not working, do more of it. Posting photos of mansions and yachts, and vilifying the rich may feel personally satisfying to those who harbor great resentment towards the success of others, but it does nothing to resolve serious structural fiscal issues that our government faces. Resentment and anger are not solutions.

I really don't care who benefits from tax reform, so long as it spurs GDP growth. If Obama had matched the GPD growth of Reagan or Clinton, the economy would be nearly 20% larger today, with far greater opportunities for workers and higher tax revenues even at lower rates. This is a fact, not an opinion. https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president?ref=patrick.net 

I have limited time, as I am trying to close some deals by Christmas. I have no desire to, and will not engage in debate or discussions on these issues. You may consider this my once every 2-3 years foray into the sewer. Now I need a shower.

I had no idea CL was a seagull.

you know, the sort that flies in, shits all over, and leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, daddle said:

Yeah. I get that the thread is focusing on pseudo-economic anecdotes. Heh. That your refurbished trickle down economy will consist of the one-percenters not so much as creating wealth as throwing crumbs to the masses...mostly in the form of purchasing prostitution and the other dark products of the 99% economy that support the carefree life at the top. Don’t need any questionable anecdotes, just read the headlines to get a feel of what the one-percent’s ambitions consist of. It is not investing in infrastructure. It is not increased R&D. Nothing that will benefit the lower classes.

Franks has a spare 5 million with which to buy sex and perhaps a child. Holy crap. People at the other end of the economic ladder have even figured out how to get sex and children for less money, no? Brilliant, your representatives. These idiots are expected to distribute wealth in a smart fashion. Heh.

 

I would wish none of them were responsible for wealth distribution 

Share this post


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

I would wish none of them were responsible for wealth distribution 

That's exactly it. They are living in Sin City and we are fighting over the crumbs. Welcome to the modern world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

how many years has jizkid bumped the same thread?

Tom gets obsessed with a subject, JiZKid gets obsessed with individuals. Trust me, the latter is more creepy.

Share this post


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

That's exactly the point. CL operates in two highly regulated sectors - oil and finance - so his experience is probably particularly painful.

BUT

You have to ask yourself why those regulations exist.

They were created in response to repeated bad acting on the part of the affected industries - ecological disasters on the part of the oil industry and financial disasters on the part of the financial industry. We currently have a bunch of liabilities that the government will have to pay for that were left behind by defunct oil exploration outfits. Anybody remember the S&L fiasco? How about the Sub-Prime mess and all the quasi-criminal offshoots of it that TARP (you) had to pay for?

Regulations are not created out of whole cloth - they are always a response to an unacceptable situation.

Thinking that they can be eliminated wholesale with no consequences is delusional. The usual suspects will make more money and the taxpayer will pay for it - just as happened countless times in the past.

This is, combined with CL’s astute observations, IMO, the heart of the thread. 

From CLs perspective, Obama’s era was a failure because growth wasn’t enough and wages stagnated. This happened because Obsma’s Policies strangled businesses. 

Sloop points out that Obsma’s era was marked by particularly obsessive and harsh partisan obstruction, so any judgement of the era should be honest about what it is that caused problems. 

The oil & gas & banking sectors drive our economy. When they fuck up, we all tank with them. But they do not seem to be honest or contrite when they screw the pooch. 

Deepwater Horizon happened. The collapse of our economy happened because bankers loved their bonuses more than proper risk assessment. Yet here is CL saying “oh woe is me, release me from my shackles you evil progressives” while discussing his several highly profitable businesses. 

During the latter half of Obama’s tenure, I met many people who were getting needed health care done because of legislation with Obama’s name all over it. Their homes had been foreclosed, their economic future imperiled by the predations and fuckery of CEOs they never met, but at least they could get lipomas remived, knees replaced and such. 

If these folks can get back on their feet and not have the rug pulled out from under them by large financial institutions then we will have released them from having the bank’s foot on their neck. 

Sorry, I still believe we have to make CEOs and corporations pay a price to become fabulously wealthy: their actions show they respond to tanking the economy, the environment by going quiet for a respectable period, & then right back to resenting oversight and taxation and screwing with our futures. Not sure why we should “trust them” when they’ve shown criminal recklessness and heartless predation. 

Cry me a river, CL. Figure out how to make money despite regulation. It’s your job, and YOU may have to innovate to compete. Seems you’ve been content to stagnate and others will outcompete by creating new markets and more transparent/safer business models that make compliance less burdensome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

In business, if you're doing something and it's not working, do something different. In politics it seems, if you're doing something and it's not working, do more of it.

Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't worry, the GOP won't get around to those dreaded spending cuts.
 

Quote

 

The disconnect between Ryan's stated objectives and his current legislative efforts is not exactly lost on his critics across the aisle. After hearing Ryan tout entitlement reform, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) griped that "Paul Ryan just admitted that after providing $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large corporations, Republicans will try to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and help for the most vulnerable Americans."

Somehow I doubt Sanders has much to worry about. Republicans have an opportunity to reduce Medicare spending as part of the tax bill, and they are planning to skip it.

One of the side effects of the tax legislation that Republicans are now finalizing is that it would trigger an automatic cut to Medicare on the order of about $25 billion a year, thanks to a 2010 "pay as you go," or PAYGO, law that calls for mandatory spending cuts in order to restrain deficit growth.

But numerous Republicans have declared that allowing these cuts to go into effect would be a bad idea. "Medicare is underfunded as it is. If we have to change the PAYGO rules, we'll just change 'em," Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) told Politico.

This willingness to override the automatic spending reductions is shared by GOP congressional leadership, which has apparently promised Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key Senate swing vote on the tax plan, that the mandatory cuts will never go into effect. "I am absolutely certain that 4 percent cut in Medicare that I mentioned will not occur," Collins said in an interview with local news. "I have it in writing from both the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and also Senator Mitch McConnell."

 

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, I still believe we have to make CEOs and corporations pay a price to become fabulously wealthy: their actions show they respond to tanking the economy, the environment by going quiet for a respectable period, & then right back to resenting oversight and taxation and screwing with our futures. Not sure why we should “trust them” when they’ve shown criminal recklessness and heartless predation. 

Cry me a river, CL. Figure out how to make money despite regulation. It’s your job, and YOU may have to innovate to compete. Seems you’ve been content to stagnate and others will outcompete by creating new markets and more transparent/safer business models that make compliance less burdensome. 

So it is not enough that LeBron provides heavily sought after NBA entertainment to the masses, but he deserves to be punished for it as well?

Remember, those CEOs and corporations can only become fabulously wealthy by providing society with a valued product or service, just like LeBron.

So, if you want to make it arbitrarily even harder to become fabulously wealthy, what you are really saying is that you want to make it harder for them to give you desired products and services.  Think about who you are fucking over here.  You are fucking over yourself.  Also keep in mind your motive.  Your motive is not just revenue for the government.  It is not just that we have bills to pay, LeBron has money, so lets get it from him.  It is more of a deeper resentment of LeBron's wealth.  You want to make it both harder for him to become wealthy, and if he does become wealthy you want a big piece of it for yourself.

Now, of course, if LeBron is just a criminal, then that is a different story.  But you seem to equate the idea of becoming wealthy and being a criminal.  Why is that?

The people that you know that were "preyed" upon by the banks.  Were they making their mortgage payments in a timely manner?  Do you think Banks should be required to give out loans where paying them back is optional?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Cry me a river, CL. Figure out how to make money despite regulation.

I think he did. You hire more compliance people and make less money.

Those darn compliance people! They ruin everything!

I was kinda spoiled, always worked for a small company (well, almost always) and never really had anybody's foot on my neck. On those rare occasions when I went to committee meetings, it was almost always to point out to chair-warmers that safety and training were not optional frills that should be cut for the sake of profits. I recall one discussion involving gas-freeing a utility tunnel, and I said "y'know I learned in the military how to blow stuff up, but in this case it's more important that I learned how to NOT blow stuff up." It seemed there was always the attitude on the part of "upper management" (in those case where I worked with such) that workers were lazy and deceitful.

From the point of view of an investor, I have seen that the guy holding the cookie jar thinks that all the cookies are HIS. The fact that a huge number of people worked to grow the sugar and wheat, build the oven and gather the fuel, and finally mix & bake the cookies....... well, he didn't see it, so it's not real. Forcing a distribution of the cookies is just more goddam intrusive regulation.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furman and Summers comprehensive smackdown of Republican arguments that the the tax bill will pay for itself. A bit dated but worth the read - https://www.ft.com/content/584e645f-fa5c-397e-933d-72e5cd7e62b3

 

"You recently wrote an open letter https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-tax-reform-will-lift-the-economy-1511729894 to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin quantifying the economic impact of tax reform. We are interested in and surprised by your analysis. We share your commitment to the idea that well-designed tax reform can make the economy stronger and that careful economic analysis is essential. And we know that you all share our belief that such careful analysis is well served by discussion and debate of these issues that is at least as frank and vigorous as what we are all accustomed to in the average economics seminar. To that end, we think it would be useful to lay out some of the questions we have about your analysis......."

Share this post


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

This is, combined with CL’s astute observations, IMO, the heart of the thread. 

From CLs perspective, Obama’s era was a failure because growth wasn’t enough and wages stagnated. This happened because Obsma’s Policies strangled businesses. 

Sloop points out that Obsma’s era was marked by particularly obsessive and harsh partisan obstruction, so any judgement of the era should be honest about what it is that caused problems. 

The oil & gas & banking sectors drive our economy. When they fuck up, we all tank with them. But they do not seem to be honest or contrite when they screw the pooch. 

Deepwater Horizon happened. The collapse of our economy happened because bankers loved their bonuses more than proper risk assessment. Yet here is CL saying “oh woe is me, release me from my shackles you evil progressives” while discussing his several highly profitable businesses. 

During the latter half of Obama’s tenure, I met many people who were getting needed health care done because of legislation with Obama’s name all over it. Their homes had been foreclosed, their economic future imperiled by the predations and fuckery of CEOs they never met, but at least they could get lipomas remived, knees replaced and such. 

If these folks can get back on their feet and not have the rug pulled out from under them by large financial institutions then we will have released them from having the bank’s foot on their neck. 

Sorry, I still believe we have to make CEOs and corporations pay a price to become fabulously wealthy: their actions show they respond to tanking the economy, the environment by going quiet for a respectable period, & then right back to resenting oversight and taxation and screwing with our futures. Not sure why we should “trust them” when they’ve shown criminal recklessness and heartless predation. 

Cry me a river, CL. Figure out how to make money despite regulation. It’s your job, and YOU may have to innovate to compete. Seems you’ve been content to stagnate and others will outcompete by creating new markets and more transparent/safer business models that make compliance less burdensome. 

Show me a CEO who started out naked in the woods with just sticks and rocks, and I'll be glad to let him keep 100% of all that he's earned by himself. The reason why these huge amounts of money can be accumulated is because of the socio-economic system which requires a certain amount of overhead to keep functioning. The ironic thing is that the same business owners who gripe about intrusive regulation and burdensome taxes are griping that they can't find educated workers and the transport infrastructure is crumbling.

CEOs see their jobs differently. They don't see it as leadership, or any demand for productivity on themselves. They see it as shepherding huge amounts of money thru a convoluted system. And to be sure, there is a need for that. Big corporations can't exist without it. But the ability to shovel large amounts of money into ones' own pocket while not caring or even acknowledging the leaving of smoking wreckage behind you, as demonstrated by Carly Fiorina on a small scale and Mitt Romney on a larger scale, is not what this country needs as "leadership" nor as a cultural ideal.

-DSK

 

Share this post


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

Show me a CEO who started out naked in the woods with just sticks and rocks, and I'll be glad to let him keep 100% of all that he's earned by himself. The reason why these huge amounts of money can be accumulated is because of the socio-economic system which requires a certain amount of overhead to keep functioning. The ironic thing is that the same business owners who gripe about intrusive regulation and burdensome taxes are griping that they can't find educated workers and the transport infrastructure is crumbling.

CEOs see their jobs differently. They don't see it as leadership, or any demand for productivity on themselves. They see it as shepherding huge amounts of money thru a convoluted system. And to be sure, there is a need for that. Big corporations can't exist without it. But the ability to shovel large amounts of money into ones' own pocket while not caring or even acknowledging the leaving of smoking wreckage behind you, as demonstrated by Carly Fiorina on a small scale and Mitt Romney on a larger scale, is not what this country needs as "leadership" nor as a cultural ideal.

-DSK

 

A tax break for Larry Ellison?  

Who will make up your review panel to determine which CEOs are deserving of the tax break?

Which CEOs don't "deserve" their money?  Should those corporations not be allowed to hire them? 

Maybe you could be in charge of approving all CEO hires?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Having spent a lot of time in the corporate world, 'better' in a relative term.

Growing businesses want CEOs that are connected.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of investors with deep pockets that will call them back.  They spend most of their time on the road raising money.

Stagnant businesses want CEOs that are pedigreed.  At that level, they don't really plan shit - they have meetings, make people happy, but most importantly, have a list of finance/banking types that will call them back.  They spend most of their time making sure no one does anything too outside the official plan.

The simple reality is that most boards are made up of friends and former colleagues that meet occasionally to make sure that the CEO is following 'the plan' - whatever plan that is - and provide different lists of contacts depending on the needs of the day.

That is the reality of big business.  It's about networks of people who are willing to cut deals.  Is that 'value'?  Sure.  Its even a unique value.  The simple fact is they have the phone number to 'XXXX'  and you don't nor are you likely to ever get it. 

Has the person done anything to 'deserve' the money they get?  Statisticians say the birth lottery is the primary determination at that level and from my experience, I agree.  I've met some pretty dynamic CEOs that i'd follow pretty much anywhere - and I've met CEOs that primary skill seems to be 'tallness' and the ability to choose the carpet color based upon the three swatches their executive secretary picked out earlier in the day.  In other words, they're pretty much an average distribution of people who've been born into a certain level of social status and attended the right school or had the right contact.

BTW:  Chase down the 'relationship tree' of Hollywood and  you'll see the same thing.

 

That may be the only semi rational explanation I’ve heard regarding CEO pay,   At >$150 per minute I’d be requiring the CEO gets a colonostomy bag and catheter, no way I’d pay him a grand to use the toilet.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Cry me a river, CL. Figure out how to make money despite regulation.

I think he did. You hire more compliance people and make less money.

Those darn compliance people! They ruin everything!

...

Not meant as a whine, just the way things are. As CL points out, those people don't generally add to productivity, so overall productivity goes down, so you make less money.

Whether the rule they're complying with is needed is a separate question. CL mentions banking and drilling regulations. Even a barbarian like me sees the need for regulation of both of those activities, so there are going to be compliance people who cost money and produce little.

Share this post


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

Not meant as a whine, just the way things are. As CL points out, those people don't generally add to productivity, so overall productivity goes down, so you make less money.

Whether the rule they're complying with is needed is a separate question. CL mentions banking and drilling regulations. Even a barbarian like me sees the need for regulation of both of those activities, so there are going to be compliance people who cost money and produce little.

Regulatory burden harms small and midsize companies.   The ones who cant afford a legal team and an office full of compliance officers .

 

 

Share this post


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

Not meant as a whine, just the way things are. As CL points out, those people don't generally add to productivity, so overall productivity goes down, so you make less money.

Whether the rule they're complying with is needed is a separate question. CL mentions banking and drilling regulations. Even a barbarian like me sees the need for regulation of both of those activities, so there are going to be compliance people who cost money and produce little.

Right, I did not intend to imply whining, just a standard semi-funny reply similar to "yeah, I hate it when that happens."

Compliance people and safety officers are certainly not my favorites. At one point in my sordid career, I laughed like hell when an OSHA inspector hurt himself on a job site while demonstrated how his PITA demands would make us safer. OTOH I have fought like hell against truly unsafe work demands on many occasions.

-DSK

Share this post


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

Right, I did not intend to imply whining, just a standard semi-funny reply similar to "yeah, I hate it when that happens."

Compliance people and safety officers are certainly not my favorites. At one point in my sordid career, I laughed like hell when an OSHA inspector hurt himself on a job site while demonstrated how his PITA demands would make us safer. OTOH I have fought like hell against truly unsafe work demands on many occasions.

-DSK

Hows this...the compliance officer I was dealing with for several years was a pain in the ass.   A month didnt go by without somekinda infraction .  Everyone despised her.  

Well this  sharp eyed, clipboard carring woman was walking home after work...failed to obey the pedestrian stop liight and got killed by a car .

tough break.

Fortunately the new compliance officer is much more reasonable 

Share this post


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

Hows this...the compliance officer I was dealing with for several years was a pain in the ass.   A month didnt go by without somekinda infraction .  Everyone despised her.  

Well this  sharp eyed, clipboard carring woman was walking home after work...failed to obey the pedestrian stop liight and got killed by a car .

tough break.

Fortunately the new compliance officer is much more reasonable 

Shucks, the old one is perfectly reasonable..... now.    -_-

 In the military, there are two kinds of supply officers. One is the kind who does whatever it takes to get you what you need, and other is the kind who tells you that you can't have anything, no matter what it is, no matter how it's authorized, and no matter how many of them he's got sitting on his shelf. That same divide in attitudes is present in many other professions, too.

Fact is, we live in a pretty fucking complicated world where all kinds of shit we don't know about can bite us in the ass.

-DSK

Share this post


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

Regulatory burden harms small and midsize companies.   The ones who cant afford a legal team and an office full of compliance officers .

 

 

exactly, they should be able to dump drill waste across the street from Tom's house, assuming they are small or midsize. That's what you mean, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

exactly, they should be able to dump drill waste across the street from Tom's house, assuming they are small or midsize. That's what you mean, right?

That wouldn't ever happen if that damned Gubmint would get off the backs of productive people and let them be productive.

Just ask JerKZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna be a whole lot of independent contractors -

NY Times -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/business/economy/tax-plans-may-give-your-co-worker-a-better-deal-than-you.html

Excerpt -

Consider two chefs working side by side for the same catering company, doing the same job, for the same hours and the same money. The only difference is that one is an employee, the other an independent contractor.

Under the Republican plans, one gets a tax break and the other doesn’t.

That’s because for the first time since the United States adopted an income tax, a higher rate would be applied to employee wages and salaries than to income earned by proprietors, partnerships and closely held corporations.

The House and Senate bills vary in detail, but both end up linking tax rates to a whole new set of characteristics like ownership, day-to-day level of involvement, organizational structure or even occupation. These rules, mostly untethered from income level, could raise or lower tax bills by hundreds or thousands of dollars for ordinary taxpayers and millions of dollars for the largest eligible businesses.

“We’ve never had a tax system where wage earners were substantially penalized” relative to other types of income earners, said Adam Looney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Treasury Department official.

Share this post


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

Gonna be a whole lot of independent contractors -

NY Times -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/business/economy/tax-plans-may-give-your-co-worker-a-better-deal-than-you.html

Excerpt -

Consider two chefs working side by side for the same catering company, doing the same job, for the same hours and the same money. The only difference is that one is an employee, the other an independent contractor.

Under the Republican plans, one gets a tax break and the other doesn’t.

That’s because for the first time since the United States adopted an income tax, a higher rate would be applied to employee wages and salaries than to income earned by proprietors, partnerships and closely held corporations.

The House and Senate bills vary in detail, but both end up linking tax rates to a whole new set of characteristics like ownership, day-to-day level of involvement, organizational structure or even occupation. These rules, mostly untethered from income level, could raise or lower tax bills by hundreds or thousands of dollars for ordinary taxpayers and millions of dollars for the largest eligible businesses.

“We’ve never had a tax system where wage earners were substantially penalized” relative to other types of income earners, said Adam Looney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Treasury Department official.

It’s the end of the world as we know it...

Share this post


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

exactly, they should be able to dump drill waste across the street from Tom's house, assuming they are small or midsize. That's what you mean, right?

It wouldn't harm his productivity, who gives a fuck?

 

compliance just means you aren't fucking over someone else. republicans are all about fucking over someone else. I could have dumped our toxic chemical waste in the salmon stream out back; would have saved lots of money in the short term. Too bad                                                                                  

Share this post


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

“We’ve never had a tax system where wage earners were substantially penalized” relative to other types of income earners, said Adam Looney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Treasury Department official.

Seriously?  That background and he never heard of FICA or income tax?

0017_taxes-snapshot-full.gif

Looks like 81% comes from current income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I laughed like hell when an OSHA inspector hurt himself on a job site while demonstrated how his PITA demands would make us safer. OTOH I have fought like hell against truly unsafe work demands on many occasions.

I generally remove whatever devices OSHA has mandated to prevent things from coming in contact with cutting blades on all my tools as soon as I buy them.

Because they usually have a cutting blade that I actually WANT to come in contact with something. An OSHA no-no, apparently.

But I don't loan them out and sure as hell wouldn't hire anyone and hand him one of my tools.

12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

exactly, they should be able to dump drill waste across the street from Tom's house, assuming they are small or midsize. That's what you mean, right?

I think he means that a compliance officer is relatively less costly for a company of 100 than a company of 20, so regulations by their nature tend to favor bigger businesses. It's just the way things are.

The couple of conversations with the Sheriff seem to have put a stop to that dumping before I ever got a pic of them doing it. I check every evening and have seen no new tracks.

Now they're disposing of it totally legally, I'm sure. Or they found another vacant piece of property, which isn't too hard around here.

I did learn that this is the relatively harmless kind of mud, so they were actually doing my neighbors a tiny favor over there. Elevation = money in this part of the world. They were still trespassing and it's still industrial waste. They're allowed to just dig a hole and bury it. I'm sure this company has at least a few excavators, so digging an adequate hole takes a lot less time than it took to read this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now