A question for Republicans

[ilia25]

Your preference to live the final income distribution to the market is just as arbitrary.

No, it is a reasoned acceptance of the economic facts of life as universal as gravity when it comes to the ability for a society to survive.

Acceptance of the laws of gravity does not mean that gravity will always benefit you. On the contrary -- gravity could injure or kill you. And the same is true for the market forces.

That is why most people are given brains, so they can figure out how they can work gravity, or a free-market economy to their advantage.

You claim that progressive scales are fair because someone can 'afford' to pay it.

No. I claim that the society would give them too big a reward if it leaves it to the market. If only because the market rewards them based not just on their hard work, but on things like the level of technological development and the talents they were lucky to be born with.

The most equally fair tax would be to say everyone must pay a flat 10k every year to fund the government. Every dime after that is yours. There's an arbitrary number for you. It is the same on the rich and the poor. But this is called a recessive tax because it does hurt the poor worse because they struggle to make even twice that at times, but to a football player, they make 5 times that in a single game.

So is that fair or not? Or is it like 50% fair, or 43.15%?

The truth is that you do not believe in your own definition of fairness.

If you lessened the tax burden on the rich and stopped redistributing wealth, it would benefit me greatly.

How? How exactly lessening the tax burden of a CEO, so you will have to pay more, can possibly benefit you?

If you really believe that the economy will grow faster, or unemployment would go down if CEO would pocket 10 millions instead of just 5 -- then why do you think that?

And, if you think about it, it is not in the interest of the CEO either.

Nice projection, but wrong.

Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson.

 

[ilia25]

Or they could just shut it down.

Horse hocky on the 99%. Many people opposed the bail out.

But we'll never really know

No, but why would we want to find out -- especially since the bailout worked?

 

[ilia25]

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Yes, for the sake of most voters. Like 99.9% of them.



Or they could just shut it down.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Anyone you has studied the economy knows that's not true. The market could run a perfectly working economy into the ground. This is one example:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snX4Wf7PGts]Deflationary Spiral - YouTube[/ame]

ah yes, the isolated universe model.

Small neglected detail. There is not just 'one' market out there, and every market is a commodity unto itself as well to be bought, traded, grown and absorbed, just like any other.

Oh, really? And why do you think that collapse of one market into a deflationary spiral would not drag all other markets down the same drain? Have you ever heard of a recession spreading across the borders?

 

[Big Fitz]

Your preference to live the final income distribution to the market is just as arbitrary.

No, it is a reasoned acceptance of the economic facts of life as universal as gravity when it comes to the ability for a society to survive.

Acceptance of the laws of gravity does not mean that gravity will always benefit you. On the contrary -- gravity could injure or kill you. And the same is true for the market forces.

That is why most people are given brains, so they can figure out how they can work gravity, or a free-market economy to their advantage.



No. I claim that the society would give them too big a reward if it leaves it to the market. If only because the market rewards them based not just on their hard work, but on things like the level of technological development and the talents they were lucky to be born with.



So is that fair or not? Or is it like 50% fair, or 43.15%?

The truth is that you do not believe in your own definition of fairness.



How? How exactly lessening the tax burden of a CEO, so you will have to pay more, can possibly benefit you?

If you really believe that the economy will grow faster, or unemployment would go down if CEO would pocket 10 millions instead of just 5 -- then why do you think that?

And, if you think about it, it is not in the interest of the CEO either.

Nice projection, but wrong.

Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson.

yawn.

 

[ilia25]

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Actually, it is highly likely they'd be back at work in a year or so after GM was bought up by other companies expanding... like Ford. Their union broken, they'd be able to find work that wasn't AS good paying but close with a benefit contract as well. Of course, the dead weight of bad or old workers would be shed, making them more profitable. They may be making VWs, Fords or Toyotas... but they'd be back at work.

that's teh way the market works.

Agreed !

The demand for cars didn't go away because top heavy and overpriced GM went away. Someone would fill that gap

Sure, someone in China:
Apple, America and a Squeezed Middle Class

 

[ilia25]

yawn.

Believe me, I'm trying hard to use only small words.

 

[Big Fitz]

yawn.

Believe me, I'm trying hard to use only small words.

You were fun fisking material for a while, but sorry, the same rhetoric and jealousy over and over again... sorry dude, I just can't seem to care anymore. Do prattle on. I'll leave the debunking to someone else for a while, lest you say something worth my time.

 

[Listening]

Or they could just shut it down.

Horse hocky on the 99%. Many people opposed the bail out.

But we'll never really know

No, but why would we want to find out -- especially since the bailout worked?

Because I might have been waiting to help pick up some of those pieces at a good deal. That would have been good for me or any other investor who benefits from the market culling of losers like GM.

And saying it "worked" is strictly subjective. What worked is that Obam preserved the overpaid jobs of a lot of people who have screwed what was once a pretty good brand. I'll never drive one.

It also save him Michigan come 2012.

Here's a fun story I love.

A guy I know in CO bought some ranchland and started growing it. He added several improvements and upgrades including some processing equipment for different things. When it was all said and done, he had about a 200 milliion dollar enterprise (value) and a 175 million debt. He was doing well. Then the economy stalls and his bank calls his note. Where does he find that refinance ? He does not. He gets foreclosed on. The bank failed.

He follows this enterprise as it makes it way through the auction system. Some hedge fund in NY gets it as part of bundle for about ten cents on the dollar. It isn't worth 200 million any more, but it is worth more like 160 million. He works out financing and buys it from the hedge fund for 50 million. The hedge fund just made about 30 million and he now ows 50 million istead of 175 million.

The bank that was taken over (with the regulators subsequently forcing his note) had a better balance sheet than a lot of banks that were allowed to operate later on. Well, well....thanks to Uncle Sam this fellow just aquired about 80 milliion in equity at the expense of whoever was invested in the bank to start with.

Great job.

 

[Listening]

Actually, it is highly likely they'd be back at work in a year or so after GM was bought up by other companies expanding... like Ford. Their union broken, they'd be able to find work that wasn't AS good paying but close with a benefit contract as well. Of course, the dead weight of bad or old workers would be shed, making them more profitable. They may be making VWs, Fords or Toyotas... but they'd be back at work.

that's teh way the market works.

Agreed !

The demand for cars didn't go away because top heavy and overpriced GM went away. Someone would fill that gap

Sure, someone in China:
Apple, America and a Squeezed Middle Class

If you can't compete, you can't compete. China is still there and if they made a great car we'd buy it now. The japanese build cars in the U.S. and sell them here. They are great cars. The Koreans do it too.

Your comment is meaningless.

 

[logical4u]

Your preference to live the final income distribution to the market is just as arbitrary.

No, it is a reasoned acceptance of the economic facts of life as universal as gravity when it comes to the ability for a society to survive.

Acceptance of the laws of gravity does not mean that gravity will always benefit you. On the contrary -- gravity could injure or kill you. And the same is true for the market forces.

That is why most people are given brains, so they can figure out how they can work gravity, or a free-market economy to their advantage.



No. I claim that the society would give them too big a reward if it leaves it to the market. If only because the market rewards them based not just on their hard work, but on things like the level of technological development and the talents they were lucky to be born with.



So is that fair or not? Or is it like 50% fair, or 43.15%?

The truth is that you do not believe in your own definition of fairness.



How? How exactly lessening the tax burden of a CEO, so you will have to pay more, can possibly benefit you?

If you really believe that the economy will grow faster, or unemployment would go down if CEO would pocket 10 millions instead of just 5 -- then why do you think that?

And, if you think about it, it is not in the interest of the CEO either.

Nice projection, but wrong.

Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson.

.... Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson."

This is the definition of socialism/communism/progressivism. The "rulers" are the "elite" that collect the wealth and say how it is divided. Take a look at the places that used these methods to govern... the 99% lived in misery, while the ruling class lived in oppulance. "This country" "used to be" about having the opportunity to make your own wealth without "rulers" taking that wealth away (individual property rights). In the last one hundred years some con men have put forth this great "ponzi scheme" of targeting the wealthy for destruction by the "less fortunate".... eliminate the "wealthy" then the schemers step into fill the void (this method was the plan of Charles Manson, he wanted to help the "less fortunate" with getting started with the violence, so he planned some raids to show them how to "do it"); the schemers then subject the 99% to serfdom or slavery, however you want to label it.

Here is your homework assignment: show one culture that uses socialism/communism/progressivism type government that stands alone (that means the USA does not provide its defense). Show how the country has made contributions to the world: technologically, medically, professionally, etc.

Because when you give people (of moral character) a chance to advance their own wealth and the knowledge on how to do that, the people will improve themselves, their family, their neighborhood, their community, their city, their state, their country, and their world. I cannot understand why people sucked in by the "schemers" will not open their eyes and see they are at the bottom of the pyramid, and have little hope of every making it to the 1% of the elite schemers that they criticize, yet follow in a cult-like fashion.

 

[ilia25]

Agreed !

The demand for cars didn't go away because top heavy and overpriced GM went away. Someone would fill that gap

Sure, someone in China:
Apple, America and a Squeezed Middle Class

If you can't compete, you can't compete.

Bullshit -- you can't compete today doesn't mean you can't compete tomorrow. GM proved that.

Your comment is meaningless.

It can only mean one thing -- you have to read it again. Here is another hint:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/chinese-manufacturing-and-the-auto-bailout/

I understand were you and other rights are coming from. You want to live in a simple world, having simple solutions to simple problems. Everyone want it to be true, I myself was like that not long ago. You problem is that when you see the reality being more complicated, you choose to deny that fact.

For example you want the markets to be perfect beacause then a simple hands-off approach would solve all the problems with the economy. But it does not work like that, markets can do terrible and stupid things, especially on macro-level -- like the deflation spiral.

That's why there's a place for the government intervention, and you can deny it only at your own peril.

 

[ilia25]

.... Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson."

This is the definition of socialism/communism/progressivism.

Throwing slogans does not add to the discussion. Most adwanced countries have less inequality, more social mobility and more progressive taxes, and they are doing just fine, thank you. And I hope you are not implying that having 2.5% of GDP military spending versus 5% is somehow a significant difference.

There is no point in having too much of inequality just because market chooses to distribute the incomes one way or another. Do you really think that a person doing great job for 10 millions wouldn't do it for just 5?

 

[Listening]

Bullshit -- you can't compete today doesn't mean you can't compete tomorrow. GM proved that.

Look whose talking about the real world.

What about all the businesses that could not compete and didn't get bailed out ?

That is the way it works.

If you can't compete today...there is no tomorrow.

Or maybe there will be a second chance for Solyndra.

 

[Listening]

I understand were you and other rights are coming from. You want to live in a simple world, having simple solutions to simple problems. Everyone want it to be true, I myself was like that not long ago. You problem is that when you see the reality being more complicated, you choose to deny that fact.

For example you want the markets to be perfect beacause then a simple hands-off approach would solve all the problems with the economy. But it does not work like that, markets can do terrible and stupid things, especially on macro-level -- like the deflation spiral.

That's why there's a place for the government intervention, and you can deny it only at your own peril.

Stop drawing conclusions for which you have no data.

The free market it what it is.....a construct.

However, when more closely modeled it works best......

And the less the government gets involved, the better.

Example: If I don't have health insurance, why can't I go to a nurse practitioner who might charge a lot less than an M.D. for help ? Why ? Because the AMA says so. Where is my choice. So, if I can't get to an N.P., I might not get looked at....at all.

There's a good government program for you.

 

[pvsi.]

A question for Republicans: Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

I think you're asking the wrong crowd - most rich are liberals: Bill gates, Buffet, Romney, - these people are all liberals

 

[logical4u]

.... Being a part of a super-rich elite surrounded by a sea of low-paid plebs could be bad for your health. If history is a lesson."

This is the definition of socialism/communism/progressivism.

Throwing slogans does not add to the discussion. Most adwanced countries have less inequality, more social mobility and more progressive taxes, and they are doing just fine, thank you. And I hope you are not implying that having 2.5% of GDP military spending versus 5% is somehow a significant difference.

There is no point in having too much of inequality just because market chooses to distribute the incomes one way or another. Do you really think that a person doing great job for 10 millions wouldn't do it for just 5?[/QUOTE

This country is the "great experiment", where people choose a gov't and live with liberty. It has made all those 'advanced countries' that you mentioned (we pay for their protection, just in case you missed that).

too much inequality? Do you turn down raises because a raise might make you above the average wage? Do you give the amount of your wealth away to put you on par with the average wealth? Who are you suggesting gets to set "equality" and "fair"?

 

[chikenwing]

Everyone that owns a home and a brain should hope that the cap gains tax vanishes ,not go up,why should the Gov and so many people think that they have a right to a piece of evry single dollar a person has.

We have a spending problem,more money wouldn't fix a thing.

 

[ilia25]

The free market it what it is.....a construct.
However, when more closely modeled it works best......
And the less the government gets involved, the better.

I already explained to you a few times why your ideas are wrong. You keep denying reality.

 

[ilia25]

This country is the "great experiment", where people choose a gov't and live with liberty.

No one can be free from the society and the rules it imposes on you. That is why hiding behind absolutes like "liberty" is hypocritical.

It has made all those 'advanced countries' that you mentioned (we pay for their protection, just in case you missed that).

Just in case you missed that -- I specifically addressed that myth.

too much inequality? Do you turn down raises because a raise might make you above the average wage? Do you give the amount of your wealth away to put you on par with the average wealth? Who are you suggesting gets to set "equality" and "fair"?

My view on what could be a fair income distribution is no different from that of most Americans:

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

 

[Liability]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Did you ever get a simple "yes" or "no"?

It would be ridiculous for any rational person to expect a "yes" or "no" answer to a distorted loaded biased bullshit "question."

The end.