POTUS spoiler

[Darren Dirt]

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

[Thorin]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[onceawhile]

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).

[Tom]

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.

[onceawhile]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[onceawhile]

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 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.

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.

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.

Pretty 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.

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.

sounds good to me

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

Well, let's just disagree here.  :-)

[Tom]

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 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?

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.

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.

Pretty 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?

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.

sounds good to me

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

Well, let's just disagree here.  :-)

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

[Thorin]

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 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.

[Thorin]

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.

[Thorin]

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.

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?

[onceawhile]

So 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.

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.

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 , but we're discussing middle-class vs. rich.

The 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 Canda

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.

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

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.

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

please read this part about the Monetary reform. It supports my arguments.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Tom]

So 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.

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

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.