Righteous Wrath Online Community

(http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/u-s-electionresultsmini.jpg)

I mean it's like they didn't even bother to re-color the damn MAP!

Looks like Indiana and North Carolina switched blue to red.

So Romney+Ryan was a better choice to run against Obama+Biden than McCain+Palin.  Looks like it'll probably be a Democratic House and a Republican Congress, too.  Now the real question, are the Republicans going to play another four years of @%&#-you-mr.-President when it comes to holding up bills?

What I don't understand is why there are so many people willing to vote in a guy who plans to take their money and give it to the rich.

Quote from: Thorin on November 07, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
What I don't understand is why there are so many people willing to vote in a guy who plans to take their money and give it to the rich.

Because this election (as many typically are) was focused on FEAR.

2008 = fear of the Black Guy, fear of the Old Guy and the crazy lady.

2012 = fear of the Commie, fear of the Out Of Touch Greedy FlipFlopper Who Hates Women (and his Objectivist sidekick!)


personally I think it's very telling that since the 2000 election, the "popular vote" is almost a dead even split, within 1 million votes every time. A "civil war #2" might not be too far behind, if any major Incident occurs domestically in the next little while. There's some SERIOUS division in that "United" nation south of us.

Quote from: Thorin on November 07, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
What I don't understand is why there are so many people willing to vote in a guy who plans to take their money and give it to the rich.

It doesn't like that. The rich, being rich, have options. They'll put their money where it's most beneficial for them - including overseas.
no one will give money out of the kindness of their heart (well, that's what charities are for).

normally, it's just a matter of balance between convenient/patriotism/other considerations and how much the money makes for you.

When the economy is bad, you want to grease it with money. so you want to give incentives for the rich to bring back their money to the US, thus lowering taxes etc.

yes, the rich benefit, but they're the only ones that can make a real change. you've already got the "other money". The idea of robin hood- take from the rich and give to the poor by force (or legislation) just doesn't work. you can focus on the poor once the economy isn't going downhill anymore (Welfare, negative taxation etc.)
One of the reasons communism failed (and no, I'm not rich. Just understand the logic).

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 09:10:56 AM

Quote from: Thorin on November 07, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
What I don't understand is why there are so many people willing to vote in a guy who plans to take their money and give it to the rich.

It doesn't like that. The rich, being rich, have options. They'll put their money where it's most beneficial for them - including overseas.
no one will give money out of the kindness of their heart (well, that's what charities are for).

normally, it's just a matter of balance between convenient/patriotism/other considerations and how much the money makes for you.

When the economy is bad, you want to grease it with money. so you want to give incentives for the rich to bring back their money to the US, thus lowering taxes etc.

yes, the rich benefit, but they're the only ones that can make a real change. you've already got the "other money". The idea of robin hood- take from the rich and give to the poor by force (or legislation) just doesn't work. you can focus on the poor once the economy isn't going downhill anymore (Welfare, negative taxation etc.)
One of the reasons communism failed (and no, I'm not rich. Just understand the logic).

Hah. So far the whole "Give to the rich" ideas have fallen flat. It would have been a better idea to pay out a bunch of home loans rather than hand over billions of dollars to banks with absolutely no strings attached what so ever.

Giving money to large corporations /never/ works. Look at the billions they gave to the telecoms in the US to get the majority of the populations high speed internet a decade ago. ABSOLUTELY nothing happened, but the companies took the money and /promised/ they'd do it. And didn't.

The only thing the bank bailouts did was line the pockets of investment bankers who were already rich, because those billions of dollars were marked down as profit that year for the banks, and turned mostly into dividends and bonuses.

Please don't tell me you believe in the trickle down theory.

I was referring to taxation, which is what I thought was meant by "taking your money and giving it to the rich"- lowering tax for rich people.

In my opinion some of the bailout money shouldn't have happened.
I have a friend whose a financial advisor, he said the only reason they bailed (I think it was merrill lynch) is that GE had their finances there and their finances were good, not to mention how many work for them.
That would have caused a disaster.

The idea that the banks are professionals, so they'll do a better job in investing it than the little guy on the street- not sure I agree with it, especially in light of their demeanor. Not sure what the alternative is either though.

I'm not saying actively give them money, but I do think lower taxes to encourage more activity is in place, and not the other way. And I'm pretty sure Romney has a better understanding of financial forces than Obama. which was the question- why would anyone vote for him.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
I was referring to taxation, which is what I thought was meant by "taking your money and giving it to the rich"- lowering tax for rich people.

In my opinion some of the bailout money shouldn't have happened.
I have a friend whose a financial advisor, he said the only reason they bailed (I think it was merrill lynch) is that GE had their finances there and their finances were good, not to mention how many work for them.
That would have caused a disaster.

The idea that the banks are professionals, so they'll do a better job in investing it than the little guy on the street- not sure I agree with it, especially in light of their demeanor. Not sure what the alternative is either though.

I'm not saying actively give them money, but I do think lower taxes to encourage more activity is in place, and not the other way. And I'm pretty sure Romney has a better understanding of financial forces than Obama. which was the question- why would anyone vote for him.

I really don't think taxing people proportionally is a bad thing. I'm happy to pay my 30%. I may wish it was less, but I do get a lot for it. Turns out though that if I were richer, I could work around the system to pay a lot less, and get the same benefits as the people paying 30%. I'm not sure how people think that is even remotely fair.

Clearly it's been shown that trickle down (ie: taxing the rich less, because then they'll spend more of it!) does not work, and will not work, because the rich will not spend more for any reason. However, if you give the money to people who are more likely to spend it, the money /will/ trickle up. And then you can be sure the money will actually benefit everyone, rather than just the rich.

As for the companies failing, yes, if the banks all failed that would have been bad. However, paying down people's mortgages would have given the banks just as much money, without all the hassle of a massive stock of derelict houses that won't sell. And people get to keep their homes.

Pretty much every decision made by the Bush administration during that time was wrong.

Another option would be to take over the banks they gave money to completely. Bring them back to usefulness, and sell it off for huge gains. That would be much better than just handing over billions of dollars with no strings attached.

The only financial forces Romeny understands is how to make companies fail. Miserably. Romeny's and Bain Capital's track record is something like a 30% or more failure rate in the companies it invested in. The companies that the US govt invested in during the past 4 years have had something like a 90% success rate. That's kinda telling if you ask me. One of these two people are motivated for pure personal financial gain, the other is motivated to improve the economy and the country in general. I'll let you decide which is which.

Quote from: Tom on November 07, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
I really don't think taxing people proportionally is a bad thing. I'm happy to pay my 30%. I may wish it was less, but I do get a lot for it.

In canada you get more for it than in the U.S.
It's changing the whole model.

QuoteI could work around the system to pay a lot less

In taxes, or in amount? I don't see why if someone makes- let's say, $3,000,000 they should pay a $1,000,000. I don't see how's that fair. but that's just my opinion of course.

QuoteClearly it's been shown that trickle down (ie: taxing the rich less, because then they'll spend more of it!) does not work, and will not work, because the rich will not spend more for any reason.

No, they won't spend more. But it's WHERE they'll spend it. will they invest in the chinese stock market (for example), or in the auto industry. That matters quite a bit. and it's big money.

QuotePretty much every decision made by the Bush administration during that time was wrong.

Since Greenspan is to blame (he took responsibility), it goes back to Clinton days. and Clinton also admitted that.

QuoteAnother option would be to take over the banks they gave money to completely. Bring them back to usefulness, and sell it off for huge gains. That would be much better than just handing over billions of dollars with no strings attached.

sounds good to me

QuoteThe only financial forces Romeny understands is how to make companies fail. Miserably. Romeny's and Bain Capital's track record is something like a 30% or more failure rate in the companies it invested in. The companies that the US govt invested in during the past 4 years have had something like a 90% success rate. That's kinda telling if you ask me. One of these two people are motivated for pure personal financial gain, the other is motivated to improve the economy and the country in general. I'll let you decide which is which

Well, let's just disagree here.  :-)

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Tom on November 07, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
I really don't think taxing people proportionally is a bad thing. I'm happy to pay my 30%. I may wish it was less, but I do get a lot for it.

In canada you get more for it than in the U.S.
It's changing the whole model.

QuoteI could work around the system to pay a lot less

In taxes, or in amount? I don't see why if someone makes- let's say, $3,000,000 they should pay a $1,000,000. I don't see how's that fair. but that's just my opinion of course.

Indeed it isn't. 30% of 3,000,000 is $900,000. If I have to pay 30%, so should they. What isn't fair about it?

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 10:40:43 AM

QuoteClearly it's been shown that trickle down (ie: taxing the rich less, because then they'll spend more of it!) does not work, and will not work, because the rich will not spend more for any reason.

No, they won't spend more. But it's WHERE they'll spend it. will they invest in the chinese stock market (for example), or in the auto industry. That matters quite a bit. and it's big money.

QuotePretty much every decision made by the Bush administration during that time was wrong.

Since Greenspan is to blame (he took responsibility), it goes back to Clinton days. and Clinton also admitted that.

What, and the administration has no liability for its staff?

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 10:40:43 AM

QuoteAnother option would be to take over the banks they gave money to completely. Bring them back to usefulness, and sell it off for huge gains. That would be much better than just handing over billions of dollars with no strings attached.

sounds good to me

QuoteThe only financial forces Romeny understands is how to make companies fail. Miserably. Romeny's and Bain Capital's track record is something like a 30% or more failure rate in the companies it invested in. The companies that the US govt invested in during the past 4 years have had something like a 90% success rate. That's kinda telling if you ask me. One of these two people are motivated for pure personal financial gain, the other is motivated to improve the economy and the country in general. I'll let you decide which is which

Well, let's just disagree here.  :-)

So you're not a big believer in objective evidence and facts? ;)

note: this post was written in response to onceawhile's first post; damn you all write up your thoughts quickly!

The idea of Robin Hood - take from the rich and give to the poor - has been in effect in the US as an income tax since 1861.  The disagreement is over what percent of their money people should fork over.

An economy runs on people buying things.  If less people buy things, less people will have work making/shipping/importing/inspecting/selling things.  If less people have work because less people are buying things, then less people will buy things.  This is a vicious cycle.  Throw in that the prices of those things will be dropped to try and entice new buyers, thus reducing the money available to hire works and thus reducing the number of people with work, and the cycle is even more vicious.

What a strong economy needs is a large majority of its participants to have enough money to buy things.  Shifting the tax burden from more wealthy people to less wealthy people reduces the number of participants that have enough money to buy things; obviously the opposite is also true.  By focusing on the poor, the economy can be recovered and the nation can return to robust growth.  This was clearly demonstrated by the successes of Roosevelt's New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) programs.

As to communism, the USSR's problems stemmed from workers having low economic output and little income to inject into the economy.  A typical Russian back in the day could expect their pay to be late, there not to be enough food to buy, and to have to live in apartments shared with other families.  This more than anything caused enough discontent for the leadership to eventually capitulate and change the way the country was run.

Meanwhile, China (another communist state) has a strong economy pumping out goods that are sold worldwide, and many of their workers now do have enough income to participate in their local economies.  There is enough food available and the people can see that they can improve their own lives through hard work.

The difference between the USSR and China?  How they handled their economies and whether they ensured workers had a chance to participate in it.

I think we're debating about whether it's better to have a progressive, regressive, or proportional tax system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Proportional.2C_progressive.2C_regressive.2C_and_lump-sum).

Here in Alberta we're subject to a proportional provincial income tax and a progressive federal income tax.  We used to have a progressive provincial income tax, but that was changed to a flat rate (ie proportional) tax a while back.  I like doing math, and I did a comparison of my taxes for the three years after that flat rate was brought in to what I would've paid if they'd stuck with the progressive system.  I also worked out the taxes for what I considered the high income of $100k.  Sure enough, with the change to a flat rate the percentage of my income going to taxes was more than that of the $100k earner, while if we'd stuck with the progressive tax rate that would've been the other way around.  This indicated a clear shift of the tax burden from the higher income earners to the middle income earners.  This could be argued as a return to fairness (middle income was not paying its fair share before) or a move away from fairness (high income is no longer paying its fair share), both of which are emotionally-laden arguments.  The crux of the matter, though, is that it means the middle income earner now has less disposable income to spend, which could be hazardous for the economy.

As for getting the rich to invest their money in the US rather than in China...  If you want their money to be spent in the US, the easiest method to ensure that happens is to take their money and spend it in the US.  So if the argument is that you're trying to get US money back into the US, taxation is the best answer, reducing taxes is at best hope-and-pray, at worst will do the opposite.  However, there are two arguments conflated here - how to get US money spent in the US and how to achieve a taxation system that feels fair.

As for working the system to pay less, that is to pay less in both amount and in percentage of income.  Any smart CEO these days will take $1 a year income plus $20mil in stock options, as these are taxed at half the rate as the income.  Taking $20mil a year in income and no stock options would incur $3mil more in taxes (roughly).  Using the stock options, the CEO will only pay 15% of his income (and yes, those stock options do turn into money for the CEO) while all the lowly workers at his company have to pay 30%.

disclaimer: I don't know US tax law as well as I do Canadian tax law, since I don't live there and haven't read nearly as much of the income tax laws in the US.  However, the systems are very similar and the points appear salient in both systems.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Tom on November 07, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
I really don't think taxing people proportionally is a bad thing. I'm happy to pay my 30%. I may wish it was less, but I do get a lot for it.

In canada you get more for it than in the U.S.
It's changing the whole model.

I'm not sure that's true - what you're saying here is that Canadian taxes are more efficiently used, where in actuality its that the Canadian government simply has a different focus.  For instance, not since the end of World War II has the Canadian government attempted to keep a large armed forces equipped, trained, and at the ready.  Meanwhile, the American government has continued to increase the size of their armed forces so that it can be used to help American foreign policy.  I'm not arguing which focus on armed forces is better, but am using it to showcase how the Canadian and American governments have a different focus.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Tom on November 07, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
I could work around the system to pay a lot less

In taxes, or in amount? I don't see why if someone makes- let's say, $3,000,000 they should pay a $1,000,000. I don't see how's that fair. but that's just my opinion of course.

So that we can have a basic understanding of what you consider fair, then, can you please explain what you would consider fair for the following scenario?

1 person makes $1mil = $1mil
10 people make $100k = $1mil
100 people make $10k = $1mil

total taxable income = $3mil

poverty line = $15k
(below this, people can't pay for one of: adequate housing, proper nutrition, medical emergencies)

total tax needed to cover government expenses: $500k

note: what do you do about the $500k needed separately to raise people's income to the poverty line so that they can live in adequate housing, enjoy proper nutrition, and handle medical emergencies?

QuoteSo you're not a big believer in objective evidence and facts?

There are facts for both sides, I just don't want to engage in a political debate now. Your guy got another 4 years, let's hope he'll do better than he did so far.

QuoteThe idea of Robin Hood - take from the rich and give to the poor - has been in effect in the US as an income tax since 1861.  The disagreement is over what percent of their money people should fork over.

Notice I wrote by force. If it's voted upon in a democratic way - we all swallow frogs we don't want to up to a point, because we feel we had a choice. I also wrote there's a balance between how much tax you pay and other considerations which will decide the final result.
I don't think higher taxes at the moment is the way since we want to tip it towards the U.S. .  I also gave an example for a non-democratic government, to show that by force doesn't work. People are disparaged when they don't feel they had the choice (it's psychology, but if you don't feel you have the choice or do something about it, you do it in another way. btw- Sweden, a welfare country had a similar problem. It was more worth while to live off welfare. dunno if they fixed it). I do think you should "level the field", because it's just not right. Personally I like the idea of  negative tax  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax), but we're discussing middle-class vs. rich.

QuoteThe difference between the USSR and China?  How they handled their economies and whether they ensured workers had a chance to participate in it.

No, the difference is that china is a far more brutal dictatorship, where their workers work themselves to death. Do you know how many hours they work? If I remember correctly they work 18hrs daily, 7 days. Not to mention making children work.
There was a big hype over the iphone factory, and how many suicides there were there and apple assured they're going to lower the limit of working hours per person.

Their labor force is 795.5 million and THAT's the difference. India, with the same labor force and saner regulation is now one of the strongest players in world economy (I'm not linking to poverty data since it's subjective).
You can compare Chine with Canada here, and you'll see the difference: China  (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html)  Canda  (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html)

And there's also the cultural aspect. Russians will never work themselves to death, and if you don't get considerably more for your hard work there's no incentive. I'm not sure about the chinese culture, but I know that for the Japanese the highest value is to serve - which can be seen in their work and economy. I presume the chinese is more similar to that than to ours, which is why they're willing to put up with it, unlike the Russians.
The western culture is far more similar to the Russian one in that aspect.

QuoteWhat a strong economy needs is a large majority of its participants to have enough money to buy things.  Shifting the tax burden from more wealthy people to less wealthy people reduces the number of participants that have enough money to buy things; obviously the opposite is also true

Rich people will just shift their money. They won't pay more. If you've reached their "suck it up" limit, how unjustified it feels, then they have the resources to shift funds and arrange it in a way that they might even end up paying less(legally). It' how motivated they are to do so (and invest money and time doing so).
Which is how I started my first post - rich have resources. middle-class doesn't. Sad, but true. The government won't have enough if it will pass their limit, and then it will have to raise taxes again (or increase it's debt, again).
The rich just won't participate in the game, which I think is largely overlooked.

QuoteThis was clearly demonstrated by the successes of Roosevelt's New Deal programs

please read this part about the Monetary reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Monetary_reform). It supports my arguments.

QuoteSo that we can have a basic understanding of what you consider fair, then, can you please explain what you would consider fair for the following scenario?

yeah, I probably didn't explain myself well (I wrote fast )

I want to know that there's a threshold that if I'll be able to reach, then my taxes won't keep increasing, it will actually reduce (not that I'll ever get there).
I mean, through my hard work and extra effort, I made more revenues (indirectly) for the country than the average person. In fact, set it high - add another bracket. I just don't want my reward for my extra work in the form of more money for the government.
While "flat rate" seems the most just on paper, I do prefer the progressive one for the reasons you stated- hurting middle class, only I want it to become regressive at some point, and "even out" the progression, making it "flat" - after all, the sums of money given are BIG, and did produce money for the government indirectly.
This way the circumvention you mentioned about a smart CEO won't be needed.
But again, it's just my opinion and I'm no economy expert.

Quote
1 person makes $1mil = $1mil
10 people make $100k = $1mil
100 people make $10k = $1mil

total taxable income = $3mil

poverty line = $15k

your distribution is skewed. you have 100 out of 111 below the poverty line. There's no way to make this fair. Kinda like a 3rd world country.
I'd say take 30k from each of the 10 making 100K, take 250K-300K from the rich guy.
let the government go into debt (or cut expenses), give the poor ~2K each and hope the rich guy will donate money for the poor.
The only way to make your math work is take 50% from each,  40% from mid-class and 60% from rich guy, or 30/70. In either case I find it crazy. If that's the case, the government is doing something VERY wrong or it's not a free market.
If I were the rich guy I'd just immigrate.

Quotedisclaimer: I don't know US tax law as well as I do Canadian tax law, since I don't live there and haven't read nearly as much of the income tax laws in the US.  However, the systems are very similar and the points appear salient in both systems.

I'm VERY VERY VERY FAR from an expert myself.

----
damn, that's a long long post :-p
making up for 8 yrs..  lol

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 12:50:42 PM

QuoteSo you're not a big believer in objective evidence and facts?

There are facts for both sides, I just don't want to engage in a political debate now. Your guy got another 4 years, let's hope he'll do better than he did so far.

There is only one truth. Both sides are pretty much diametrically opposed. I mean you can decide that you are right even against the facts, fox does it all the time.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 12:50:42 PM

QuoteWhat a strong economy needs is a large majority of its participants to have enough money to buy things.  Shifting the tax burden from more wealthy people to less wealthy people reduces the number of participants that have enough money to buy things; obviously the opposite is also true

Rich people will just shift their money. They won't pay more. If you've reached their "suck it up" limit, how unjustified it feels, then they have the resources to shift funds and arrange it in a way that they might even end up paying less(legaly). It' how motivated they are to do so (and invest money and time doing so).
Which is how I started my first post - rich have resources. middle-class doesn't. Sad, but true. The government won't have enough if it will pass their limit, and then it will have to raise taxes again (or increase it's debt, again).
The rich just won't participate in the game, which I think is largely overlooked.

They keep saying they will. But it makes absolutely no sense. They will still make bajillions of dollars. In fact, there will be more money in the economy if they aren't able to hoard most of it, meaning they may actually make just as much. Crazy as that might sound. It'll just be more liquid. and liquidity is /very/ important for an economy.

They would have a choice between doing business and make $2,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 OR they just stop doing business and make $0. Basically if they actually decided to pull out of the US the entire system would collapse and all of their money and investments would be worthless.

So yeah, that argument is complete nonsense.

The "income tax" started as a result of The War, and it ONLY applied to the super-rich, for a very small % amount. Needless to say the middle class and poor folks were happy to have Their Guy In Office vote in favor of it. Over time it started applying to more of the populace, for larger % of income.


Overall, most people (of not-unlimited means, i.e. the non-Romneys of the world ;) ) are happy as long as "Bread and Circus" is taken cae of.

As long as they can eat, and distract themselves with some form of entertainment, they won't really do much about The System, no matter how unfair or even downright brutal it is (nor if it is increasing in that respect).

"Fat, Dumb, Happy" that's what a lot in the Alternative News/Media industry (ever-growing since the early 2000s, thanks to Internet + post911BushStuff) like to label the Average American. Poly-tick-ians pretend to care about the opinions of the folks in their neck of the woods, but tbh I think they just are making sure they do their part to enable/increase the FDH level/quantity of people.


Thread discussions like the above are far more "high quality content" than most of what's on the internet when it comes to subjects like this.

Funny thing is, didn't even expect financial stuff to be brought up here.

QuoteThey would have a choice between doing business and make $2,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 OR they just stop doing business and make $0. Basically if they actually decided to pull out of the US the entire system would collapse and all of their money and investments would be worthless.

How about investing the minimum, or just some in the US (like mid-upper class) and the rest outside?
you're an all or nothing kind of guy, huh?
The thing about portfolios is diversity. No one said anything about ALL of it.

Also, by your logic the crisis wouldn't have happened. no one would have shifted his money to real-estate due to the low interest and they'd just be satisfied with the lower interest rates at the bank.

The analogy stands, they'll move it outside the US until it will be advantageous again. And we (well I) don't want that.

Hmm, there might be some disconnect here.  I think Tom is talking about actually running a company that pays workers and produces profit, whereas with the above post you seem to be talking about investments that whether they pay workers or not still return a profit.  I say this, because a brick-and-mortar business is a lot more expensive to move out of a country than a portfolio of investments.

If we're talking about businesses rather than portfolio investments, then the cost of moving said business must be offset against the cost of the higher taxes to be paid.  For many business owners it will still be more profitable to keep the business where it is, as the increase in corporate taxes being proposed is not that high.

If we're talking about investment portfolios, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop investment in foreign holdings, short of making it illegal.  At the same time, that money wouldn't help the local economy anyway, as an economy needs the movement of goods and money to work out, not just a guy who says "I lent you this money now give me that back plus some extra".

And it's the economy you want fixed, right?  Usury kills economies, hence why the central banks raise their prime lending rates when the economy is growing too fast.

As for the crisis, I'm not sure we're on the same page there, either.  I assume you're talking about the mortgage-backed securities that banks were allowed to sell, moving their risk on mortgages to investors, thus making them not care if a mortgage was a risk or not.  If the banks who issued the mortgages had been required to retain the risk of said mortgages, there wouldn't have been mortgages issued to people who had no hope in hell of making the minimum payments.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 07, 2012, 02:55:12 PM

QuoteThey would have a choice between doing business and make $2,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 OR they just stop doing business and make $0. Basically if they actually decided to pull out of the US the entire system would collapse and all of their money and investments would be worthless.

How about investing the minimum, or just some in the US (like mid-upper class) and the rest outside?
you're an all or nothing kind of guy, huh?
The thing about portfolios is diversity. No one said anything about ALL of it.

Also, by your logic the crisis wouldn't have happened. no one would have shifted his money to real-estate due to the low interest and they'd just be satisfied with the lower interest rates at the bank.

The analogy stands, they'll move it outside the US until it will be advantageous again. And we (well I) don't want that.

I'm not an all or nothing guy, it seemed like you were saying business owners aka: the rich would up and move if they were charged too much tax.

Now, if you were actually talking about investments, thats a bit different. I for one don't really care, most investing (ie: the stock market) is pure gambling and should be treated as such.

Of course fewer investments in American companies would slow down the economy, people will spend less, and they'll make less money (or lose money) due to stock prices falling.

Rich people moving significant amounts of money or business out of a country would have serious repercussions. And if they did it to the US, it would affect the entire world. There is no place they could go without it affecting their profits.

I have to note that one part of the cause of the crisis was due to the Glass?Steagall Act being eroded. Guess who was in favor of that. I think what is interesting is the economy had no extreme downturns till  then. After it had been weakened to the point of uselessness, we had the 80s recession, the 2000 recession, and then the super major recession (depression?) of the 2008.

As Thorin pointed out, the bad mortgages had a major hand in the crisis. Of course if the banks were still properly regulated, it wouldn't have happened. The same banking rules they phased out in the US over the past couple decades or so, canada has kept pretty solid. And how did we do? Quite a lot better than the US. The one canadian bank that got hit hard that year due to the worthless securities still made a profit (without a bailout).

QuoteHmm, there might be some disconnect here.  I think Tom is talking about actually running a company that pays workers and produces profit, whereas with the above post you seem to be talking about investments that whether they pay workers or not still return a profit.  I say this, because a brick-and-mortar business is a lot more expensive to move out of a country than a portfolio of investments.

QuoteAt the same time, that money wouldn't help the local economy anyway, as an economy needs the movement of goods and money to work out, not just a guy who says "I lent you this money now give me that back plus some extra

Yeah, kinda caught up with the princple of it, but there's also need for money circulating - lending money for new businesses (though not that popular now, there are still start-ups), and venture capital funds need financing too.
portfolio can also include real-estate, buying spaces for rental purposes etc. etc.

In general, I agree that moving a business elsewhere might not be worthwhile, but if you need to open a new center - it is. In addition companies will down size existing operations and outsource overseas, they won't completely shutdown and relocate as Tom suggested.

Producing things is china is definetely cheaper, and I don't see an increasement in import taxes due to the relationship with China, and I do know that big companies open R&D centers in India - the workforce is cheap and of high quality, unlike China. If I'm not mistaken in the past couple of years Cisco opened there a center and stopped reqruiting in the US.

QuoteAs for the crisis, I'm not sure we're on the same page there, either.  I assume you're talking about the mortgage-backed securities that banks were allowed to sell, moving their risk on mortgages to investors, thus making them not care if a mortgage was a risk or not.  If the banks who issued the mortgages had been required to retain the risk of said mortgages, there wouldn't have been mortgages issued to people who had no hope in hell of making the minimum payments.

No, I wasn't talking about the extremely bad regulation. That was the "check point" that was suppose to stop it.  I was talking about Greenspan leaving the interest too low for too long, shifting investments to real-estate starting the bubble (the real estate worth more over time than money sitting in the bank). Of course, with proper regulation it wouldn't have happened, so that isn't considered the main failure. It's what usually happens when the interest is low, I was giving it as an example for shifting investments, and his logic (that doesn't fit the capitalist model).

"As chairman of the Federal Reserve, he cut interest rates and left them at rock-bottom levels for two years.

Cheap borrowing costs encouraged Americans to load up on debt to buy homes, even when they had no savings, no income and no job prospects."
from  here  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/03/who-caused-financial-crisis-great-recession)(first hit on google, lazy)

Quote
I have to note that one part of the cause of the crisis was due to the Glass?Steagall Act being eroded. Guess who was in favor of that.

hey, you saved me looking for a new link ;-))


After a fierce lobbying campaign, Clinton agreed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between investment and retail banks. The move heralded the coming of superbanks, huge behemoths that took in retail deposits and used them to take highly-leveraged punts in the markets.

To make matters worse, Clinton beefed up Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force lenders to take a more relaxed approach to disadvantaged borrowers. Liberalised banks plus millions of new sub-prime customers equalled one big problem.

QuoteRich people moving significant amounts of money or business out of a country would have serious repercussions. And if they did it to the US, it would affect the entire world. There is no place they could go without it affecting their profits.

If there's one thing rich people are good at, it's saving their own money. I'm sure a slow economy will affect the government more than it would the rich ppl. They'll fix it first, and they'll come back. I don't think it will reach the point you're talking about, the government will have to step in first. And as I said before- they won't pull it all.

In a way, you're talking about survival. I'm talking about "jump starting" the economy. We want the rich to invest more money in the US. Corporate or not. Not the other way. Can you tell me how increasing their taxation will do that? What is their incentive other than some ideals?

Quote from: Darren Dirt on November 07, 2012, 02:50:40 PM
Funny thing is, didn't even expect financial stuff to be brought up here.

Well, at least it's on topic in that the economy was a mainstay of both candidates' platforms.  We're not discussing nyan cat or something :)

onceawhile, one of the things I found troubling was lack of insight into Romney's plans for the economy.  He claimed that he would reduce taxes on the rich while at the same time increasing support for needy.  Sure, he had gaffes where he said the poor were already well taken care of and where he said that 47% of America were lazy, but those were only gaffes.  Everyone misspeaks on occasion.  However, I never found details on just how cutting taxes and increasing spending was going to reduce the American deficit.  This lack of detail made it seem like he was just saying whatever anyone wanted to hear; if you go back to the McCain/Palin ticket, they did the same thing.  Meanwhile Obama/Biden stayed pretty clear on their plans, offering up details and willing to discuss them.

The funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House :)

Quote
The funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House :)

I know where you guys are from.
I'll confess and say I've been kinda lurking in your forum since Melbosa and Mags(iirc) started it (2004 I think??). Before there was a "website".
Used to read once a week, then once every 3-4 months or even more, and now maybe once every couple of weeks or so(hence "onceawhile"). usually I just have nothing to say/contribute and I do enjoy reading you guys, as DD said - high quality.
hope it's not too creepy :-)

I think you offer a better perspective, outsiders always have insights.
and why shouldn't you care who's in the white house? It affects the global economy. I think the whole world has an opinion (as you said, different focus).

QuoteI never found details on just how cutting taxes and increasing spending was going to reduce the American deficit

I'll try and find something that explains the economical plan (to be honest, I didn't see one), but I gotta go now.
I guess that it's just so obvious to me, like that low interest leads to real-estate acquisitions etc.
I've made most of the basic points here - lower tax will encourage rich to invest more, there'll be more money in the system and that will get the market started. It's the basic capitalist economy.

But you make a very good point. It's not specific and it really should be explained more clearly.

The thing I find puzzling is how come ppl always assume the rich will do what they want them to.
The rich will pay the taxes and suffer quietly, and do what they're told. The rich have so many options to do things otherwise. They don't have to play by the rules. Just like the example you gave about a smart CEO.  Or what you said about investing money overseas - you can't stop it. you have to make it worthwhile, and somehow I always feel that fact is overlooked.


I didn't mean for this to become such a long thread, but you know how ppl get carried away over these subjects. I just wanted to explain how can ppl vote for someone that "will take their money and give it to the rich"... lol.
I hope you got some kind of an answer :-))  (even if you disagree).

QuoteIf there's one thing rich people are good at, it's saving their own money. I'm sure a slow economy will affect the government more than it would the rich ppl. They'll fix it first, and they'll come back. I don't think it will reach the point you're talking about, the government will have to step in first. And as I said before- they won't pull it all.

They've already pulled a bunch, even with large tax cuts. I really don't think you understand the situation as it currently sits, and the stupid threats that the super rich keep making. ie: "If taxes go up, I'll just shut my business down" type of stuff.

I'm not sure you've been reading my walls of text. I've already (I think) clearly stated what can only happen from those threats from being realized.

1. taxes go up
2. rich people and businesses move money and jobs out of the country
3. economy slows due to less money and jobs for the majority of the population
4. rich people make less money
5. goto 1

Of course the gov't suffers as well. It's a self feeding cycle of doom. /if/ the people making the threats actually had the balls to do it. I don't believe they do. It could easily lead to a full collapse.

Quote
In a way, you're talking about survival. I'm talking about "jump starting" the economy. We want the rich to invest more money in the US. Corporate or not. Not the other way. Can you tell me how increasing their taxation will do that? What is their incentive other than some ideals?

Yeah, that jump starting is called "Trickle down" and its been tried. And it failed. Miserably. 3 words: bush tax cuts.

QuoteI'll try and find something that explains the economical plan (to be honest, I didn't see one), but I gotta go now.
I guess that it's just so obvious to me, like that low interest leads to real-estate acquisitions etc.
I've made most of the basic points here - lower tax will encourage rich to invest more, there'll be more money in the system and that will get the market started. It's the basic capitalist economy.

Sadly they've tried all that and its failed horribly. The bush tax cuts (and increased spending) have only made things worse. And will continue making things worse till they are allowed to expire.

QuoteThe thing I find puzzling is how come ppl always assume the rich will do what they want them to.
The rich will pay the taxes and suffer quietly, and do what they're told. The rich have so many options to do things otherwise. They don't have to play by the rules. Just like the example you gave about a smart CEO.  Or what you said about investing money overseas - you can't stop it. you have to make it worthwhile, and somehow I always feel that fact is overlooked.

Of course they won't do the ideal thing. Most of them are greedy sociopaths. Then again, most people wont do the ideal thing either.

"encouraging" the super rich to do something that they don't want to do, isn't going to make them do it. They already don't want to help the economy, they want to hoard as much money as is possible.

You say they'll just move some/most of their stuff overseas, well they've already done that. Look at all the outsourcing to asia. They've probably already moved as much as they can by now, without causing large ripples.

QuoteThe funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House

I think it does matter though. The US has a huge influence on the rest of the world. What do you think happens when spending far exceeds income? That's essentially Romeny's plan. Spend a lot, tax less. Somehow the govt is then able to magically balance the budget and pay down 16 trillion in debt. It's very basic math.

Also, the US has The Harper wrapped around its finger. At some point we need to tell the US off. The US government really needs to keep its nose out of our business. guh.

Wow, 8 years?  You should have more than 15 posts by now :)

Low interest leads to speculation on real estate acquisitions, thus leading to real estate bubbles such as we've seen going back and forth across North America (Canada included) over the last ten years.  High interest leads to real estate selloffs, correcting the market prices (and usually wiping out a great many citizens' equity).  Medium interest is best for long-term stable real estate growth, but only if properly regulated.  Of course most politicians want growth-Growth-GROWTH, rather than moderate-but-sustainable growth, therefore we see prime rates from central banks manipulated to try and heat up the economy and thereby also the real estate markets.

Low tax does not encourage investment by the rich, it's actually the expected return on an investment that encourages it.  The rich do not care if the poor suffer, they care if there is more money to be made.  And this is not some slam of the rich, this is merely human nature expressing itself - we are all hardwired to try and survive, even at the expense of others.  While high tax tends to dampen the expected return on an investment, even if taxes are high a rich person will still invest their money if there's a large return on it.

So how can a government increase the expected return on investment?  Well, it can lower corporate taxes or give special tax rates for certain investment returns (eg dividends).  That seems pretty straightforward.  Or it can make sure the workforce is more productive, by ensuring it is properly educated and has access to productivity-enhancing technology.  That takes a lot more work, but will have the same effect as lowering taxes.

However, Obama's not been talking about corporate taxes, he's been talking about personal taxes.  His figure of increasing the top rate ($200,000+) by 3.5% means that someone just at the low edge will have to pay $7,000 more per year ($583.33 more per month when their gross paycheque is $16,666.67).  So is that fair?  Or should that $583.33 be paid by ten people making $20,000 each per year?  If someone were to ask me that, I would say that the single person making $200k per year has much more disposable income after adequate shelter, proper nutrition, and quality healthcare is paid for than the ten people making $20k each.  And yet it's the same amount of tax.  That's the basis for my standpoint that it's fair to ask the person with higher income to pay more tax, as it will affect their standard of living less.

Now, here's a couple of interesting articles about taxes (well, if you're into that kind of thing):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/comparison-of-us-and-canadian-tax-rates-for-2010/
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-us-federal-tax-rates-for-2011/

edit: here's a second problem, more outlays than revenues (going back to 2001):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png)

From mobile so I'll keep it short.
Let's separate the "fair" from what will actually happen. Tom says they've already took it all out, you say it's ideals that will keep them paying taxes.

I'm saying that those that didn't bother to reorganize in a way to pay less - whether it was ideals or didn't matter to them that much, now will. So in effect you'll get less. If I would need to pay an accountant $5000 so I won't have to pay additional $7000 I will. Every month. Or even open an account in Belize

If the super rich wanted to hoard so much they wouldn't give so much to charity (buffett and gates as an example).

Personal taxes do effect portfolio- as discussed earlier. As for models- later.

Paying an account $5k so you don't have to pay $7k only works if there are loopholes.  One of the things I mentioned earlier is that loopholes need to be removed.  A big one is the idea that dividends (and thus stock options) get taxed at less than half the rate of salary.  Another one is the ability to write off non-realized losses, that is, losses that didn't really happen.

Opening an account in another country doesn't make you exempt from paying American taxes, unless you are no longer living and working in the US.  Even then, many countries have tax treaties allowing ex-patriates to be taxed in their country of origin.  But hey, if a rich person decides to move to another country and live and work there, good for them.  Freedom of movement, and all that.

My comments about fairness are from the perspective of the poor, not the rich.  I'm not expecting someone who makes a lot of money to just automatically want to share it, as you said before.  However, one of the problems that has been facing the US for several decades is the widening of the gap between the richest and the poorest, while the middle and upper-middle classes are shrinking.  If this continues unchecked the US could end up with a very rich elite and a huge contingent of working poor.  If said contingent then feels wronged or unfairly treated by tax laws that favour the rich, well, there's a lot of guns and a lot of crazies in the US and they may just decide to "take it back".

-----

This thread should be reviewed two years from now to see what actually did happen.

I just have to state that I am very biased against anything anyone says that I've heard said on Fox News, or by (far-right) republican politicians for that matter. They all have a long history (past 12 years at least) of being at best being misleading, and at worst outright blatant lying.

I will have to see some very very clear and convincing evidence to show that trickle down actually works. And it can't come from /just/ right wing think tanks, or people paid by (far right) republicans.

It doesn't help that a lot of it makes no sense what so ever.

I also can't really stomach some of the things far left liberals have to say either. But the far right are a lot louder.

Trickle down requires the people who acquire wealth to spend it back. It's a fallacy, you don't get wealthy by spending your wealth.

Quote4. rich people make less money

Nope. Rich people make money overseas. Not so bad for them. what you're talking about  - total failure - won't be allowed to happen by the government. It's not arm wrestling. who's stronger. The government needs to take care of others (most of the population really), and they'll have to take action far earlier than that. The man on the street can't take it.

QuoteOne of the things I mentioned earlier is that loopholes need to be removed.

That's kinda impossible. you only find loopholes after the fact, and the harder you push the harder ppl will look for them. it's a cat and mouse game, and it's really futile.

Quotemany countries have tax treaties allowing ex-patriates to be taxed in their country of origin.

That's why I mentioned Belize (afaik). Besides, what actually happens is that they move their money into new companies they open abroad. Buy whatever they need under the corporate's name (like private jets) and rent it to themselves for like a dollar a day- instead of buying here, drawing cash etc. etc. (it's a big problem to start to evaluate all the costs and how realistic the rent is, the government doesn't bother really - so I've been told).
tax sheltering is a BIG industry.

As I said before - you'll reach the breaking point of more people which will resolve to that.

QuoteBut hey, if a rich person decides to move to another country and live and work there, good for them.  Freedom of movement, and all that

No, bad for us. You want them to make transactions and get the taxes from it. you want their "loans", you want them to do business here. you DON'T want to encourage skilled workforce to leave. Also, high taxation means skilled workforce won't immigrate to the country. Canada's immigration law encourages rich skilled people to immigrate there. why? they create new companies, bring new ideas, new patents etc. They're mainly over-achievers.  A big chunk of the 500 fortune companies were founded by skilled immigrants.
This is from an article from may   link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/47599766/The_Mass_Migration_of_the_Super_Rich)


"Meanwhile, the newly rich people in several emerging markets ? Russia, China or Brazil ? are looking to come to better protect their wealth or families. The combination of slowing growth, political uncertainty and volatile markets at home has lured some of the newly rich around the world to move to Britain or the United States."

Well, they'll think twice before coming to the US.

At the moment, they're leaving france due to planned taxation there:

"... Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros [$250,000] are wondering whether to remain in a country ...."

"Some have already left. Laetitia Casta, a wealthy French model (and a Victoria's Secret Angel) moved to London while Alain Ducasse, a French chef, became a naturalized citizen of Monaco to take advantage of that principality?s very low tax rates. French singer and actor Johnny Hallyday (nicknamed ?the biggest rock star you?ve never heard of?) moved to Gstaad, Switzerland, to escape the high taxes of France.
.....
Hollande?s proposal is dampening enthusiasm for others to move to France as well. "
--
"And while France was just beginning to recover from a recession that followed the Great Recession in the United States, the Bank of France is predicting that it will go into recession again this fall. "

link1 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/12408-rich-french-citizens-are-leaving-france)

link2  (http://rt.com/business/news/france-tax-homes-sale-989/)


I think there are 2 discussions here:
1. what is the ideal model.
2. what needs to be done now.

Your fair arguments goes into 1. Clearly the situation isn't good enough and the poor aren't taken care of adequately. Health care argument alone is enough. BUT, is now the time to try and fix it all?? absolutely not.
No, I'm not saying wait for the economy to boom- you'll never start. But you need to have some baseline, some room for error while implementing your solutions, some stability - you don't expect it to go smoothly, do you?
do it partially, don't go full steam ahead.

In a way, Obama is too early - or too late, whichever you prefer. He's so focused on the ideal, that he's just reckless when it comes to dealing with the crisis. He doesn't understand timing. I may or may not agree with the way he want to do things, but that's how it always go, left-right. But we're not in a normal situation now, and he seems to be oblivious to that (and before Tom says anything - just my opinion, not going to argue over it). I'm hoping now that he has extra 4 years he won't be in such a rush, stop to think and will do better.

All of my arguments are "what do we need to do now, to get out of the crisis" . It hasn't improved much. Making rich people try and find ways to avoid paying taxes (and the loopholes are there) moving funds abroad etc. etc. is just not the way.

As for the lowering taxes model, it's the laffer curve  link (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_the_left_hates_the_laffer_curve.html)

"Bearing this in mind, common sense would seem to dictate that our goal should always be to have tax rates which keep us on the ascent, or left side of the peak. Once over that crest, the dangers become much more numerous. "

The question, of course, is where we're at. Laffer did the math and deduced they were on the right so taxation had to be reduced. And that's the model Reagan used. SUCCESSFULLY.

"During the Reagan presidency, the top marginal rate of tax in the US fell from 70% to 31%, while revenue continued to increase every year from 1980 ($885B) to 1990 ($1.93T). According to the CBO historical tables, government revenue as a percentage of GDP increased from 31.8% in 1980 to 33.2% in 1989"

Of course, nowadays we're obviously not at the same place on the curve.
I'm not an economical expert, but I'm sure Romney's guys did the math, and how much of a reduction is feasible.
And you know what? maybe reducing taxes won't get it started as much as in Reagan's days, but it sure as hell has more of a chance than INCREASING it (insert all my previous arguments here + the "mood" it creates. Up vs. down).
Also- Romney wouldn't have spent as much. But that's another debate.

as for the Bush tax cuts - my friend (whom I used for much of the data. he's a financial advisor) said that the current assumption is that they'll be extended for at least another year. Let's see what's going to happen.

QuoteThis thread should be reviewed two years from now to see what actually did happen.

If I'll still lurk around I'll bump :-) . kinda hope to be proved wrong here...

Ah, the Laffer Curve.  I first learned about it from Wikipedia a couple of years ago, thanks for that other link which also does a good job of explaining it.

The problem with throwing the Laffer Curve out there is that it's not simple or cut-n-dried or even the same for all citizens - different people with different incomes and different aversion to risks will have the peak of the curve at different tax rates.  Figuring out even a generalized statement on whether the US is on the up slope or the down slope of the curve is a humongous task and best left to professional number crunchers, like the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO stated back in 2005 that a 10% cut in taxes would increase the deficit, not decrease it, thus implying that the average US citizen was on the up slope back then.  They published their data and processes for others to duplicate if so desired.

So your basic point here is that the average US citizen is at the peak or already on the down slope of their personal Laffer Curve, and especially so the rich; thus decreasing taxes for the rich should increase revenues by stimulating the economy.  This is a point we simply disagree on, then - I think the rich and super-rich have had so many tax cuts and breaks in the last 30 years they are well down on the down slope of their personal Laffer curves.  I have not seen any true attempt at finding out where the US sits now on a generalized curve since the CBO did that study back in 2005.  It could be that I simply missed it.

The most basic problem still is borrowing to match the budget rather than having the budget match the revenues.  To reduce the budget, there are really only four major budget items: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Defense.  To increase the revenues, taxes need to be increased (whether personal income tax or consumption tax or corporate tax or a blend) or the tax base needs to be expanded (more workers, more companies, more consumption).

One thing that really needs to be avoided, though, is a super-rich elite and a large poor class with no one in-between; this generally ends up in violent uprisings.  I know it seems highly implausible to have bread riots and cops framed for shooting their chopper guns at unarmed civilians (bonus points if you can name the movie), but that's only because we all believe our politicians will see it coming and head it off with judicious taxation.  Politicians have been known to get blindsided.

I didn't see any either, but I'm sure it was done - at least some kind of an assessment, and how much can be reduced for each. I mean, you don't try to run a country by guessing. Even Obama tries to work according to some model (which I dunno what it is, but GOD I hope he has one).

my friend -who can actually do the math given all the data, but I doubt he would've ever bothered (that's what you get with m.sc in economics and finance)-said it should be lower and that in general taxes skew the market as deadweight.
I'm not sure how much I agree, as you said - it's much more tricky than that, and he didn't bother to do the math.
But I do know that it just hasn't been improving, and raising taxes won't exactly give incentive to the rich guys who feel like they're ganged up upon already.
I won't be so vain to say the market taking a plunge (http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/07/investing/stocks-markets/) now is just due to Obama, but I think it had it's affect - "back to reality" after holding off w/ expectations.
We need a positive interaction for growth. not "shut up and give us your money".

for me, and it's a personal feeling, it felt like he came to the job with an attitude of "I'm the king of the world now, you'll do what I say", got that Nobel prize and all, and when the dust settled, well- it doesn't work like that. It's a general notion, but I don't think I'm the only one that felt like that. feels like they're trying to ride out the storm.

Quoteor the tax base needs to be expanded

lower taxation should do that. more transactions, recruiting local instead of outsourcing etc. etc. etc. my POV.

QuoteOne thing that really needs to be avoided, though, is a super-rich elite and a large poor class with no one in-between;

couldn't agree more. That's one of the ailments of a capitalist economy. And it should be "fixed" in other ways. Personally I really like the negative tax idea, I think they can rearrange it to work. Setting a negative tax bracket above welfare- if you managed to find work you're guaranteed higher income than welfare, even if you don't earn as much and it would also help small businesses - bigger work force. I can't understand why they're not embracing it, or try (well, Nixon almost. yes, I said nixon...  shhh) but as I said before- I'm no economy expert, and it's probably quite complicated.

Quote...but that's only because we all believe our politicians will see it coming and head it off with judicious taxation.  Politicians have been known to get blindsided

well, that's why we alternate between republicans and democrats. You vote for republicans to fix the economy, you vote for democrats to fix the poverty. kinda like court - the prosecutor does all he can to convict, the defence attorney does all he can to acquit and we get to decide.
Only with government, it's not that final. We can get a middle point. that's how I see things.
Obama is out of sync.

Quotebonus points if you can name the movie

Ahh, no.  Clues??

Well, I think I posted enough to cover 8 years now, at least if you count by characters...  so unless there'll be any new ideas -  talk to ya in a couple of years :-)

Quote from: onceawhile on November 08, 2012, 07:32:34 PM
lower taxation should do that. more transactions, recruiting local instead of outsourcing etc. etc. etc. my POV.

I don't think it works that way. The tax cuts the past X decades would have done that. It didn't. The only thing that has happened is broader globalization at the expense of the working class.

The people pushing hard for that sort of plan are the same ones who have a lot to gain by it. It's a major conflict of interest. And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard (verified, ie: multiple peer reviewed papers that weren't paid for by interested parties) math on how it will actually work.

They will continue to take their tax cuts, and find the lowest possible cost base. Why? because they make more money that way. Giving them more money, will not make them stay (ok, maybe some will).

Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world. You would have to see a significant amount of new transactions to make up for the lower taxes. Not only that, you'd probably have to pull in more from external sources as well (except the large corporations work VERY VERY VERY hard to keep money they make overseas, overseas, but not in the country it originated in).

Here's an interesting look at the US federal debt and deficits over the last century: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html.  It's interesting to see which presidents had no problems growing the national debt by huge amounts.  Wars seem to spur on high spending, which makes sense, but then that begs the question why the US doesn't try to avoid wars?

Whether Republicans actually fix the economy and whether the Democrats actually fix poverty, I'm not so sure.  As can be seen from the link above, Republicans spent a great deal of money, but that didn't necessarily equate to better economies.  Here's a list of the modern recessions (since the Republican party was originally the Democratic Republican party, and so only the more modern era has the Rep vs Dem dynamic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onward.  From this, it appears that both Republican and Democratic presidents have had recessions start during their terms, as well as they've had recessions stop during their terms.

The movie was The Running Man, Arnie refuses to open fire on unarmed civilians rioting over food, then the footage gets altered and he's branded the Butcher of Bakersfield.  Damn, I can remember way too much trivia from my youth.

I see you've mentioned Negative Income Tax a few times.  This idea is new to me, but as far as I can tell from the literature I've read it's just another wealth distribution effort.  Many proponents assume it's a linear tax rate, although there's no reason it could be progressive (higher rates at higher income).  However, this is an income tax and doesn't address the basic problem of reducing tax owing by reducing incoming and increasing capital gains, just as rich people do now.

My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues.

Quote from: Thorin on November 08, 2012, 11:22:21 PM
My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues.

Huh. I'd heard that there was a surplus during the Clinton years. And that Bush managed to more than wipe it out even before the wars started.

Quote
"And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard math on how it will actually work."

"Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world."

no one disputes the existance of the laffer curve. They argue on where on it are we. It has to do with your tax base, people hide less, more transactions taking place. clearly it worked for Reagan. If you want to know the exact math you'll have to get a degree. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any other answer for you.

Quote
"I see you've mentioned Negative Income Tax a few times."

Well, at the moment people on welfare don't contribute much. They get money from the government and give partially back.

Negative tax will encourage them to work, even if it's not a "good job", this way - they'll contribute to the economy indirectly (which is very important. income tax accounts for a small portion), and we'll get more back.
I have no doubt people want to work, I don't think they're lazy. Objectively, there's no reason to work for less than what you get and it's hard to find a job that will pay off. Just like the rich, if you want something to happen you need to actively encourage it, AND it can solve some of the illegal workforce problem.
At the moment they have to give minimum amount of hours if they want to stay on welfare. I'm suggesting adding a bracket with negative tax, the more they'll work the more they'll get (until they'll move out of that income bracket). In addition, welfare is time-limited, while negative tax isn't and economically can justify itself more and cost less to the government.
It's rearranging the lower income structure. lowering welfare and encouraging more work.
it's a long term solution that can make capitalism work for the poor, and I like it.
Wiki says it's implemented in Israel now for a certain population, I couldn't find much,  this seems interesting  (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=179826), but the taxation system as well as the welfare system is very very different.

I just think there's a lot to that idea, it makes a lot of sense and they should try and find a way to implement it. I don't think the current welfare system is good, although it has improved greatly over the years.

It goes to my idea of an "ideal solution". But as I said before, I'm far from an expert but it seems to be a better idea.

Quote
"Whether Republicans actually fix the economy and whether the Democrats actually fix poverty...."

Those are very interesting links. I'll go over them. If I'll have something smart to say, I will. At the moment, the bed is calling.

QuoteWars seem to spur on high spending, which makes sense, but then that begs the question why the US doesn't try to avoid wars?

well, the real question is why have big armed forces. I assume it's clear why. Do you think Canada can allow itself a small Army if the US had a small one?
most countries have various protection alliances. The US, is the US. U.S.A. ... lol. self sufficient and all.
Wars are just another form of practice. How you keep your forces trained. Once you have the soldiers, it's quite the same and training is quite different from a real war as far as scenarios etc. so you just benefit.
Yes, you risk lives. That's the downside. On the plus side, you spread freedom and eliminate risks that will eventually reach home.

I was reading about communism recently. Did you know that the USSR financed the FLQ (indirectly of course)? financed a lot of other factions, well terrorists, world-wide. just thought it's an interesting tidbit.

foreign policy is a VERY long debate, VERY complicated and EXTREMELY charged.
so I won't go there.

I'll just add that the armed forces has also been implemented as an equator.
They will finance school for you, some plans before service, some plans after and there are other benefits (tax etc.) for spouses left behind etc. etc .

Quote
"My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues."

I'll be very happy if he'll cut it in half. zero deficit.... that'll be something...


The running man...

wow. haven't seen that in a L O N G time. great movie. can't say I remember much of it though. I'll have to rewatch.

Quotewell, the real question is why have big armed forces. I assume it's clear why. Do you think Canada can allow itself a small Army if the US had a small one?
most countries have various protection alliances. The US, is the US. U.S.A. ... lol. self sufficient and all.
Wars are just another form of practice. How you keep your forces trained. Once you have the soldiers, it's quite the same and training is quite different from a real war as far as scenarios etc. so you just benefit.
Yes, you risk lives. That's the downside. On the plus side, you spread freedom and eliminate risks that will eventually reach home.

Wow, what? It's not clear why the USA has a large army, it's certainly not for border defense.

Canada has traditionally stepped up to the call of war when it came, which is how it should be. Prior to WWII we had half a dozen warships, by the end of the war we were the third largest navy. And so has been the story of our involvement in major conflicts we have been a part of. As well our forces have always been 100% volunteer, no press gangs, no military draft. Highly trained and motivated people doing what needs to be done.

You speak of waging war as training? Bosh. Training is Training. War is War. All you do is keep the boys in the field away from their jobs and families to bring home a lot of bad memories and ghosts wile creating ill-will internationally.

Maintaining a large force and actually fielding them puts fear in the mind of "lesser" powers and CREATES the problems you wish to avoid.

A large network of complex alliances and military buildup on many sides lead to one of the most costly conflicts in history, as Remembrance Day looms its good to remember there is a terrible cost in human life to sabre rattling, "small wars" and a near constant military buildup. Learn from the mistakes of Britain, Germany and Russia.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none."
~Thomas Jefferson

Wise words from a great man.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 03:33:12 AM

Quote
"And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard math on how it will actually work."

"Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world."

no one disputes the existance of the laffer curve. They argue on where on it are we. It has to do with your tax base, people hide less, more transactions taking place. clearly it worked for Reagan. If you want to know the exact math you'll have to get a degree. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any other answer for you.

I see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

I think people who push for these things are too idealistic. They want something so bad that they imagine magical mechanisms that may make it work.

Like trickledown ::) what a load of bullcrap that is. You know what /does/ work? Trickle up. It's how the economy /actually/ works. The general populace spends money, and it makes its way up the chain. The question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions.

oh, I knew that's going to ignite things....

first - I have utter most respect for Canada and it's forces.
You've always took part, sent forces and did just.
But you're small.

QuoteTraining is Training. War is War.

Exactly, if you want to win wars, you need experience. training isn't enough. think of it as beta- testing. Why do you think that whenever there's an earthquake or something every country sends a delegation, even if it's a small 3-person one?
It's not solidarity. they're there to learn. So, yes. if you want to have the best military in the world, you need to participate in wars. It's cruel. but true.

I'm not saying create them. that's god damn stupid. I'm talking about picking sides and participating in already existing wars. Aiding.

People die in training as well, training accidents or other human errors.
In some wars those deaths surpassed combat deaths  link  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war#Wars_ranked_by_US_combat_deaths), with experience you'll reduce those, so for a large scale war you'll do better.

As for how big, how often, which wars to participate in, for how long etc.- oh, there were mistakes.

My point was that the wars don't necessarily costs extra (well, ammunition probably). It's how big you maintain your military and participating in war can be beneficial.

I'm not saying wars are good, they're not. In case this wasn't clear.
The question was why not avoid wars, since it costs extra. It's how big you maintain your forces, not in how many wars you participate.

Quote
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none." 

Yep, self sufficient. Stand alone. That requires big armed forces - just in case.

QuoteA large network of complex alliances and military buildup on many sides lead to one of the most costly conflicts in history, as Remembrance Day looms its good to remember there is a terrible cost in human life to sabre rattling, "small wars" and a near constant military buildup. Learn from the mistakes of Britain, Germany and Russia

I'm not sure what you mean. Someone has to do it. We don't live in a rosy world.
like it or not, the US is the center of the world, and as such- at most risk. So being "the cops of the world" saves in the long run.
And being the center of the world means most susceptible to attacks. (Pearl Harbor?)
In addition, you need global stability for global trade.  kinda a pre-requisite. That's how you maintain it.

As I said before this is a charged subject, and quite off the election debate.
unless there's something you really want me to reply to, or something needs clarification, I prefer going back to my lurking now.

I feel like I'm hijacking the forum.

----------------------------------------

QuoteI see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

Tom, I simply don't understand you. not sure if it's me or you.

you said you don't understand how can tax reduction increase revenue because "It just doesn't work that way in the real world". Now you say the curve exist but doesn't have such an effect, "it can't possibly make up for all of it".
I gave you data that shows IT DOES, and DID. Historical facts that no one else disputes.
I gave you the model behind it, a link that explains (imo) the model in a clear and simple manner, it's a valid model, that both sides agree on.
if you want to argue if we're at it's ascend or descend, near the peak or not, how much it will affect - that's fine. Thorin already made those arguments, and I explained why I'm against raising taxes even if that's the case - in a very detailed way.

If you want me to answer something specific (assuming I can), or just reply to something - can you please do so in a form of a question? because I feel like I've already addressed everything in my VERY long posts.

I'm not trying to persuade you. Just to show you the logic behind my thought process, it might make you think about things more, re-evaluate. not trying to turn you to the "dark side".
Thorin made a good point about it not being detailed enough, I agreed and got more details (well, just asked a friend that is a professional in the field how it works). It was beneficial for me.
I also thought those links about D vs. R recessions were interesting, but going over the reasons for each, I didn't find anything that will change my opinion.
This whole thread started as "I can't see the logic behind the other side's views".
That's all.
Exchange of opinions triggering thought.

I keep getting from you the feeling you want me to prove you wrong - not my goal and I'm not going to do that.

QuoteThe question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions

I agree. However getting the rich to spend, keeping their money here, making new investments probably will. No one said it has to be big tax cuts. I wrote about it before.
Obviously tax cuts alone will not get us out of this crisis. But in my opinion raising tax on the rich will DECREASE revenues (from all the reasons I wrote before), and that's just creating another problem to fix, which has a big impact.

You've mentioned gas tax. Romney wanted to produce more locally. That mean reducing costs. Lets say that the cost for the consumer was 4$. producing locally decreased it to 3$ and you gave the consumer a new price of 3.5$. you've made money. He also wanted to approve the Keystoe XL line - again, reducing costs.
I'm not going to go over his plan. You can check his website on your own. It wasn't just tax cuts. The tax cuts are there to invigorate the economy. get the ball rolling. compensating for the immediate impact in other ways (including cutting government expenses) and let the economy recover.
After all, a free market has it's own rules. you shouldn't go against the flow, and you can't force it to go against it's nature.
You need to find a way to make it work using it's own rules. And that, imo, the big difference between the two.

I hope I'm done here  :)

Yes, the USSR funded organizations that they hoped would help destabilize their opponents.  So have many other powerful countries throughout the ages, which without thinking too hard I can already think of examples for the UK, the US, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Spain, Norway, the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia in the last few hundred years.  For instance, privateers were really just pirates getting paid to attack ships from certain countries.

As for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.  The UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to know compared to how large their empire used to be.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM

QuoteI see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

Tom, I simply don't understand you. not sure if it's me or you.

Mostly me probably. I admit I made a mistake when I said that I don't believe that lowering taxes didn't work /at all/ before (when I didn't know about the laffer curve). However I still don't think it can make up for the shortfall, and more on top of it.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
you said you don't understand how can tax reduction increase revenue because "It just doesn't work that way in the real world". Now you say the curve exist but doesn't have such an effect, "it can't possibly make up for all of it".
I gave you data that shows IT DOES, and DID. Historical facts that no one else disputes.
I gave you the model behind it, a link that explains (imo) the model in a clear and simple manner, it's a valid model, that both sides agree on.
if you want to argue if we're at it's ascend or descend, near the peak or not, how much it will affect - that's fine. Thorin already made those arguments, and I explained why I'm against raising taxes even if that's the case - in a very detailed way.

If you want me to answer something specific (assuming I can), or just reply to something - can you please do so in a form of a question? because I feel like I've already addressed everything in my VERY long posts.

I'm not trying to persuade you. Just to show you the logic behind my thought process, it might make you think about things more, re-evaluate. not trying to turn you to the "dark side".
Thorin made a good point about it not being detailed enough, I agreed and got more details (well, just asked a friend that is a professional in the field how it works). It was beneficial for me.
I also thought those links about D vs. R recessions were interesting, but going over the reasons for each, I didn't find anything that will change my opinion.
This whole thread started as "I can't see the logic behind the other side's views".
That's all.
Exchange of opinions triggering thought.

I keep getting from you the feeling you want me to prove you wrong - not my goal and I'm not going to do that.

Well that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that. Its sorta a pet-peeve of mine when people get started having a discussion and are completely unwilling to consider the other's side.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM

QuoteThe question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions

I agree. However getting the rich to spend, keeping their money here, making new investments probably will. No one said it has to be big tax cuts. I wrote about it before.
Obviously tax cuts alone will not get us out of this crisis. But in my opinion raising tax on the rich will DECREASE revenues (from all the reasons I wrote before), and that's just creating another problem to fix, which has a big impact.

Purely opinion I think. The US is currently at its lowest tax rate in like 50 years. And it hasn't helped one bit as far as I can tell. If anything its cut revenue by hundreds of billions over at least the last decade.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
You've mentioned gas tax. Romney wanted to produce more locally. That mean reducing costs. Lets say that the cost for the consumer was 4$. producing locally decreased it to 3$ and you gave the consumer a new price of 3.5$. you've made money. He also wanted to approve the Keystoe XL line - again, reducing costs.

I'm not entirely sure producing gas locally is cheaper. It costs a lot more to produce /anything/ in the US and Canada. Wages/StandardOfLiving is much higher. Safety requirements are a lot stricter, as are polution controls. It all adds up to significant costs. And in the end, the gas companies are still going to charge what ever OPEC is charging. Why? because they can, and they make more money that way.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
I'm not going to go over his plan. You can check his website on your own. It wasn't just tax cuts. The tax cuts are there to invigorate the economy. get the ball rolling. compensating for the immediate impact in other ways (including cutting government expenses) and let the economy recover.
After all, a free market has it's own rules. you shouldn't go against the flow, and you can't force it to go against it's nature.
You need to find a way to make it work using it's own rules. And that, imo, the big difference between the two.

He didn't have a plan. He never once discussed his platform or his actual plans. Not to mention he constantly flip flopped.

You should look at what happened to Europe. They decided to take the "cut spending" route, and its hurt many countries massively. In the past it was done in the US as well. It hurt the general populace and economy quite badly then too. At least till "the new deal", then the economy started improving, and revenues went back up. You need to improve the economy before revenues can go back up. And chances are, it won't kick start itself, because its a self feeding cycle. The lower it gets, the lower it wants to get. Things cost more, people have less money, less is produced, cost goes up, people have less money, etc.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
I hope I'm done here  :)

That's up to you.

Quote from: Thorin on November 10, 2012, 01:28:40 AM
Yes, the USSR funded organizations that they hoped would help destabilize their opponents.  So have many other powerful countries throughout the ages, which without thinking too hard I can already think of examples for the UK, the US, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Spain, Norway, the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia in the last few hundred years.  For instance, privateers were really just pirates getting paid to attack ships from certain countries.

As for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.  The UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to know compared to how large their empire used to be.

The US's current behavior just makes other countries mad. If it weren't for their current habit of not meddling, they wouldn't be such a juicy target for other world leaders, causing the populace to rise up in hate.

Canada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US.

QuoteAs for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.

The of size of a military is measured by military expenditure as percentage of GDP.
worldBank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS)
wikipedia  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)


nowadays it's about half than it was during Eisenhower's era. link  (http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/Catalog/static/bsm/historymodules/modules/mod32/frameset.htm)
I think we're ok for now.

QuoteThe UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to now compared to how large their empire used to be

True, but it started with their economical decline. The rest of the world was growing and the UK which had ~25% of Global GDP, declined to ~10% or something like that. Their military wasn't big enough anymore since suddenly there were new players (Germany etc.), with their military.
Also, it's not like we're conquering and trying to be an empire, you know.
And what's the alternative? China taking over as the world's police??


--------------------

QuoteWell that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that.

I prefer ppl giving me facts and explaining their logic, letting me think and decide for myself.
not brainwash me.
I guess you can look at it your way....

QuoteCanada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US

Officially you're a dominion of the UK, therefore all the hate is focused on them.
If they were to be attacked you are obligated to defend them.

In Yemen (the world's terror center) they hate the UK just as much.


The great depression was due to lack of regulation. Back then stock/market manipulation (e.g. selling back and forth to raise the price of the stock and then sell it to some poor sap who'll lose his money) was legal.
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Securities_regulation

Quote from: Tom on November 10, 2012, 09:54:37 AM

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
I hope I'm done here  :)

That's up to you.

I'll take that as my exit cue.


-----------------------

Thx for the "food for thought" (now and previously).

TAKE CARE :-)

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM

QuoteWell that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that.

I prefer ppl giving me facts and explaining their logic, letting me think and decide for myself.
not brainwash me.
I guess you can look at it your way....

I did not intend or mean to "Brainwash" (that is typically an argument made by someone unwilling to consider other viewpoints btw). I was expressing my view's hoping to show a different view point, one which is considerably simpler, and more common sense.

To be honest I still don't get why everyone isn't doing as you suggest if it works so well. Sure politics makes people do stupid things, but not that stupid. It would make all the politicians and their rich friends richer (according to you), and improve the economy, which increases their likely hood of keeping their jobs extra long term. Its a win-win-win. And yet? It isn't done in any country on the planet. And if it has been done in the past, it isn't being done now.

So here's a question, the past few years have shown that Austerity doesn't work all that well, in fact it seems to do more harm than good (at least over the short term. It causes higher unemployment, loads of cut services and benefits for the needy). And on top of that, you would have the gov't reduce taxes under the belief that it would somehow induce people to spend more money. But they don't have money, its a recession, people are in save mode, and cutting their taxes by a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars a year really isn't going to do much as far as I can see. Forget the rich people for a moment, they get their money from the common folk spending money. If they aren't spending, the rich aren't earning, so the most important taxes to lower in your example would be the low and middle classes. Now we've already got services we can't pay for, people who aren't spending money because things cost more, and they aren't getting raises, and have gotten pay cuts, and an even greater budget shortfall than before.

To me its simple. Maybe its more complex than this, but people as a whole are pretty easy to predict (the individual not so much, but entire groups? sure).

That's just my $0.02.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM

QuoteCanada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US

Officially you're a dominion of the UK, therefore all the hate is focused on them.

Uh, its a technicality only. I really doubt most people even know we're in the commonwealth. It's not something that means /anything/ anymore.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
If they were to be attacked you are obligated to defend them.

Sure, and we have treaties with /many/ other countries that mean we come to their aid if they get attacked.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
In Yemen (the world's terror center) they hate the UK just as much.

I doubt they hate Canada quite as much.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
The great depression was due to lack of regulation. Back then stock/market manipulation (e.g. selling back and forth to raise the price of the stock and then sell it to some poor sap who'll lose his money) was legal.
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Securities_regulation

Sure, but what kept it going? Locking down on spending. Funny you should mention Securities regulation. Deregulating that market is part of the cause of the last two major recessions. Banks allowed to do as they please with everyone's money.

And again I feel like I should mention Canada. We escaped with only a few bruises from the melt down due to not de-regulating our banking industry, and requiring people to be good for the loans that they get.

Quote from: onceawhile on November 10, 2012, 01:38:18 PM

Quote from: Tom on November 10, 2012, 09:54:37 AM

Quote from: onceawhile on November 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
I hope I'm done here  :)

That's up to you.

I'll take that as my exit cue.


-----------------------

Thx for the "food for thought" (now and previously).

TAKE CARE :-)

You as well.