Taxing those who make money

[Munin]

you are mistaking end results with root causes here. Perhaps you need to do some research into mortgage backed securities markets paying particular attention to where it started, who it was that created the entities that started it and how it evolved into the major player in the current crisis.

The "companies" you refer too neither created the MBS markets nor created the enormous demand that saw the collapse of the U.S. Housing market.

According to Merrill Lynch & Co., the top 5 issuers of CDOs in 2006 were:

* Cohen & Co.
* Trust Company of the West
* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
* Duke Funding Management LLC
* Aladdin Capital Management LLC.

http://thismatter.com/money/bonds/types/cdo.htm

 

[Munin]

No YOU are debating the meaning of the word investment, when the context of it's usage here has been made very clear to you, however your insistence on playing word games only emphasize the weakness of your arguments and does you no service here.

This after I was kind enough to further clarify the meaning of the term in the context of the ongoing discussion for you (i.e. capital formation).

In this economic context the only meaning of investment is return on investment: I clearly gave an example of that, which you then clearly ignored

 

[MIPS]

No, it re "CDOs or collateralized debt obligations" that caused the housing crisis combinde with other factors (wich include gov policies: the deregulation allowed the companies to make those products). And I would describe the creation, buying and selling of these kind of products by companies as a company policy. The rating agencies also failed (they gave the CDO's AAA ratings).

you are mistaking end results with root causes here. Perhaps you need to do some research into mortgage backed securities markets paying particular attention to where it started, who it was that created the entities that started it and how it evolved into the major player in the current crisis.

The "companies" you refer too neither created the MBS markets nor created the enormous demand that saw the collapse of the U.S. Housing market.

According to Merrill Lynch & Co., the top 5 issuers of CDOs in 2006 were:

* Cohen & Co.
* Trust Company of the West
* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
* Duke Funding Management LLC
* Aladdin Capital Management LLC.

Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs); Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLO); Cash CDOs; Synthetic CDOs; Balance-sheet CDOs; Arbitrage CDOs

The MBS market wasn't created in 2006, it was created 'round about 1968. Again you are focusing on the results and not the root causes and again CDO's are MBS derivatives, keep digging.

 

[MIPS]

No YOU are debating the meaning of the word investment, when the context of it's usage here has been made very clear to you, however your insistence on playing word games only emphasize the weakness of your arguments and does you no service here.

This after I was kind enough to further clarify the meaning of the term in the context of the ongoing discussion for you (i.e. capital formation).

In this economic context the only meaning of investment is return on investment: I clearly gave an example of that, which you then clearly ignored

.....And you clearly ignored the whole discussion leading up to your "example" even though it's inapplicability to the context has been pointed out to you repeatedly, If you wish to vacillate by playing word games then that is your business, just don't expect anybody else to play along with you.

 

[Munin]

According to Merrill Lynch & Co., the top 5 issuers of CDOs in 2006 were:

* Cohen & Co.
* Trust Company of the West
* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
* Duke Funding Management LLC
* Aladdin Capital Management LLC.

The MBS market wasn't created in 2006, it was created 'round about 1968. Again you are focusing on the results and not the root causes and again CDO's are MBS derivatives, keep digging.

Why would you ignore their enormous responsabilities?

Do you not blame Toyota if it sells you a car with a broken gaspedal? Would you not be inclined to do the same?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

For example; did you know foster kids gets social security their whole lives even after they are adopted? What's up with that?

If a special needs foster child is medically eligible for SSI then they will get it as long as they need it, and because of special needs incentives, some adoptive parents get extra money from the state childrens' services agency in the state of adoption. This may cover special childvare, insurance (pre-existing conditions, ya know) and medical equipment necessary to the child's well-being.The SSI benefits are the same that a non-adoptive family would get, and when the child is grown, if they can live independently with assistance, they will continue to receive the payments, as well as in home health care, and educational accommodations, just like any other CITIZEN. which is as it should be.

Incidentally, this is far less expensive than nursing homes, and allows for people to lead productive lives!

What would YOU RATHER, euthanasia or abortion, or both?????

 

[MIPS]

According to Merrill Lynch & Co., the top 5 issuers of CDOs in 2006 were:

* Cohen & Co.
* Trust Company of the West
* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
* Duke Funding Management LLC
* Aladdin Capital Management LLC.

The MBS market wasn't created in 2006, it was created 'round about 1968. Again you are focusing on the results and not the root causes and again CDO's are MBS derivatives, keep digging.

Why would you ignore their enormous responsabilities?

Nothing could be further from the truth, the culpability is certainly there however not the lions share nor the root cause.

You have a situation where a system was created which facilitated certain behaviors to occur, now even for a banker with scruples and that realizes the dangers of engaging in this behavior he's faces a conundrum since he knows that if he avoids said dangers and forgoes participating in these expanded "opportunities" his competition will likely not do the same. Some bankers actually did take the high road and stay out of the fray or hedged their bets by keeping their exposure limited, however they did incur the risk that their competitors "gambles" would pay off in a big way over the long haul and thus offer those competitors a huge advantage.

That being said the root cause (i.e. the setup of the "system") was created by politicians and central bankers incrementally over a long period of time with a stack up of unintended consequences and poorly thought out regulatory decisions, which reminds one of the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" except in this case there were both "good" intentions on the part of the powers that be as well as some "bad" intentions (enriching themselves and their buddies).

Do you not blame Toyota if it sells you a car with a broken gaspedal? Would you not be inclined to do the same?

Of course I blame Toyota for defects with their products, however government didn't set up a situation for Toyota where they were essentially forced to design a defective gas pedal or face the risk of a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

Your anology isn't a good one though, a better analogy would be the government coming out and telling disabled people it's okay to swim in the deep ocean because the government was going to provide them with life preservers, then having the government give them defective life preservers and tying lead weights to their ankles.

 

[Care4all]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_EXt086A0w]YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show: Deregulation for Dummies[/ame]

granted she is partisan, but makes it clear, none the less....

 

[The Rabbi]

And another thing you overlooked: spending = investing

there is no difference: wether you say that you "spend" your money on stocks or you "spend" it on buying a washing maching OR you say you "invest" your money in stocks or "invest" it in a washing machine is saying the same thing.

You're kidding, right? People "invest" in a suit of clothes? People invest in new car?
I have news for you: That isn't investing.
When a company buys a new piece of equipment they do so because the new equipment will lower their cost per unit, allowing them to be more profitable. That is investment.
When consumers buy a new sofa that is not doing anything other than getting consumed. No wealth is created that way.
But don't feel bad: The Obama Administration is obviously making the same mistake.

No, I m not kidding. Yes investment is often used in terms of gaining money after you buy something. But if you look at it from up close you will notice that everything you buy is an investment, it will have a certain value in money and can possibly be profitable.

Anything you spend money on has a certain value, this makes it an investment no matter how low the value. If you re able to buy something with a low value and get more out of it than you payed for than this is a good investment.

An example: You buy a car for 20 000 $ and you see that you can rent the same car for 5000 $ a year (assuming that the renting prices stay the same: so I don't make this example to complicated), you will have done a good investment if you re able to drive the car for 7 years ( 7 x 5000 $ = 35 000 $ and 35 000 $ > 20 000 $ . You may have saved 15 000 $).

No, you've transformed a consumer item into an item used for investment. That isn't the same thing.
Anything the consumer buys decreases in value, with one or two exceptions. That is not an investment.

 

[uscitizen]

For example; did you know foster kids gets social security their whole lives even after they are adopted? What's up with that?

If a special needs foster child is medically eligible for SSI then they will get it as long as they need it, and because of special needs incentives, some adoptive parents get extra money from the state childrens' services agency in the state of adoption. This may cover special childvare, insurance (pre-existing conditions, ya know) and medical equipment necessary to the child's well-being.The SSI benefits are the same that a non-adoptive family would get, and when the child is grown, if they can live independently with assistance, they will continue to receive the payments, as well as in home health care, and educational accommodations, just like any other CITIZEN. which is as it should be.

Incidentally, this is far less expensive than nursing homes, and allows for people to lead productive lives!

What would YOU RATHER, euthanasia or abortion, or both?????

I just think this type of need should have been from another system not SS. It was not origionally designed for this.

 

[Care4all]

for example; did you know foster kids gets social security their whole lives even after they are adopted? What's up with that?

if a special needs foster child is medically eligible for ssi then they will get it as long as they need it, and because of special needs incentives, some adoptive parents get extra money from the state childrens' services agency in the state of adoption. This may cover special childvare, insurance (pre-existing conditions, ya know) and medical equipment necessary to the child's well-being.the ssi benefits are the same that a non-adoptive family would get, and when the child is grown, if they can live independently with assistance, they will continue to receive the payments, as well as in home health care, and educational accommodations, just like any other citizen. Which is as it should be.

Incidentally, this is far less expensive than nursing homes, and allows for people to lead productive lives!

what would you rather, euthanasia or abortion, or both?????

i just think this type of need should have been from another system not ss. It was not origionally designed for this.

fyi

supplemental security income (ssi)



this booklet explains what supplemental security income (ssi) is, who can get it and how to apply. It provides basic information and is not intended to answer all questions. For specific information about your situation, you should talk with a social security representative.

The ssi program makes payments to people with low income who are age 65 or older or are blind or have a disability.

the social security administration manages the ssi program. Even though social security manages the program, ssi is not paid for by social security taxes. Ssi is paid for by u.s. Treasury general funds, not the social security trust funds.

 

[beowolfe]

Well except for "those who do."

Not to mention that having money is not a precondition for being taxed, you can be broke and still be obligated to pay applicable property taxes or face forfeiture of your property, right?

So, you think those who are taxed don't get any benefit from it. Interesting.

The net benefit is of less value than the current cost to most, equal to some and of greater value to a few, all in all the current state of affairs is a raw deal to the majority.

As for property taxes, you can avoid those easily.....don't buy property!!!

Yeah I suppose that's one solution, not very practical and beside the point, but at least you tried.

So, you think that (let's take Bill Gates) what he pays in taxes is not worth the benefits he gets from the 'system'. You think Bill pays enough to have built all the roads he uses, all the airports he uses, all of the electricity he uses, etc, etc.... Interesting.

 

[uscitizen]

if a special needs foster child is medically eligible for ssi then they will get it as long as they need it, and because of special needs incentives, some adoptive parents get extra money from the state childrens' services agency in the state of adoption. This may cover special childvare, insurance (pre-existing conditions, ya know) and medical equipment necessary to the child's well-being.the ssi benefits are the same that a non-adoptive family would get, and when the child is grown, if they can live independently with assistance, they will continue to receive the payments, as well as in home health care, and educational accommodations, just like any other citizen. Which is as it should be.

Incidentally, this is far less expensive than nursing homes, and allows for people to lead productive lives!

what would you rather, euthanasia or abortion, or both?????

i just think this type of need should have been from another system not ss. It was not origionally designed for this.

fyi

supplemental security income (ssi)



this booklet explains what supplemental security income (ssi) is, who can get it and how to apply. It provides basic information and is not intended to answer all questions. For specific information about your situation, you should talk with a social security representative.

The ssi program makes payments to people with low income who are age 65 or older or are blind or have a disability.

the social security administration manages the ssi program. Even though social security manages the program, ssi is not paid for by social security taxes. Ssi is paid for by u.s. Treasury general funds, not the social security trust funds.

Cool, Thanks I did not know that.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The people who make the most don't always work the hardest.

Since the tax was lowered on the superich, they have taken more personal profit over putting it back into the company.

Trickle down my ass. It benefits the superrich and is creating an America that will be ruled by an Aristocracy of the Rich, not the best or brightest.

 

[WillowTree]

The people who make the most don't always work the hardest.

Since the tax was lowered on the superich, they have taken more personal profit over putting it back into the company.

Trickle down my ass. It benefits the superrich and is creating an America that will be ruled by an Aristocracy of the Rich, not the best or brightest.

we really don't care to know what trickles down your azz.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

supplemental security income (ssi)



this booklet explains what supplemental security income (ssi) is, who can get it and how to apply. It provides basic information and is not intended to answer all questions. For specific information about your situation, you should talk with a social security representative.

The ssi program makes payments to people with low income who are age 65 or older or are blind or have a disability.

the social security administration manages the ssi program. Even though social security manages the program, ssi is not paid for by social security taxes. Ssi is paid for by u.s. Treasury general funds, not the social security trust funds.

Thanks for clarifying this. This program is important as it keeps people out of institutional settings, costs less than institutionalizing people, and helps as many as possible to have a life they otherwise might not have!

 

[The Rabbi]

The people who make the most don't always work the hardest.

Since the tax was lowered on the superich, they have taken more personal profit over putting it back into the company.

Trickle down my ass. It benefits the superrich and is creating an America that will be ruled by an Aristocracy of the Rich, not the best or brightest.

People aren't paid based on how hard they work. They are paid based on the economic utility.
When was the tax lowered on the "super-rich"? What are the "super-rich"? What do you mean they have taken more personal profit than putting it back in the company? Do you even understand what you are talking about?
And I agree: I don't care what trickles down your ass.

 

[uscitizen]

What is this with Ass fetishes of the males on the right.
I would like to play "It's raining men" to see which ones start dancing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is the most crooked administration in U.S. history... expect the worse.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What do you expect from libs? They haven't a clue how to make a buck.. they're basically a bunch of parasites who leach off the producers and then question the manner in which we provide their substenance. Fuck 'em.