Yes I Want a Change

[FlyersFan]

fish- if you haven't looked at obama's tax and spend plans you really should take the time to do so. he is proposing some 900 new federal programs, putting a 28% tax on capital gains from ALL house sales, hammering americans on the estate taxes(death tax).......dividend tax from 15 to 39%, he voted to give SSecurity to illegals.....list is endless

i think it's really scary when i see an educated person vote for stuff like this. im not really sure how it is good for an economy when you hammer your citizens and take their money to distribute in the form of huge defecit spending and federal programs.

[BoKnows]

Actually, these are not unreasonable arguments. It will actually take me a little time to think through them. The best way to win an argument with me is to give me facts and help me learn something :) - if that is your goal.

I think the leverage thing I wrote wasn't as nuanced as yours. I think most people understand that if you allow, say, an internal trading desk at Goldman, Bear, Lehman (!) to borrow money to buy CDOs at 1% down (i.e. 100x leverage), you are making certain assumptions about the risk of those CDOs. And you are right, it works both ways, as from what I understand, it was Goldman that actually popped the housing bubble by going hard short and super leveraged just as the housing was starting to crack - but I could be mistaken.

The real root of the problem, when I really think about it, was rating agencies (Moody's et. al.) slapping the AAA label on CDO debt fraudulently. In an environment where there is little *cough* reality around actual risk assessment, allowing super high leverage (i.e. 10x and higher) is really ******* dangerous. Until we get evidence that Moddys, Fitch, and others are actually paying attention to whats going on and not just lapdogging for investment banks whose securities they grade, I think leverage has to be limited.

I agree that leverage is just a tool - it is borrowing money. The real question is "for what". Leverage to buy a home or start a business where a.) the risks are at least reasonable understood and b.) there is at least some level of skin in the game that is meaningful == good. Leverage of 100x on securities that you can't even price (hence, what they used to call "mark to model"), let alone price on a RAROC basis (risk adjusted return on capital), well, thats bad.

Back to the administration, and by that I mean going all the way from Bush (where the buck stops, remember) - to the SEC and the chain of command in between - should have stopped this years ago. Limitations on capital ratios for leverage, not allowing high leverage on securities you can't even price efficiently - would have stopped this. It didn't, and as a result, we are all paying a tax, through a lower dollar, and worse, through a government bailout of the players involved - which in the end, is simply borrowing from our kids to pay for not allowing the free market to handle these entities that ****ed everything up in the first place.

Ok, now for energy. I personally think government is the last entity that should refresh the grid. But I think some leadership to mandate a lot of things that would help, such as requiring states to allow for net metering (some do, some don't) - and promoting through tax incentives to energy companies reinvestment into the grid to make it possible - would achieve a number of positive things, namely:

a.) Making the grid more robust because power is generated in a distributed fashion
b.) Achieve the upgrades required that will allow us to leverage the wind corridor in the middle of the country

The problem is that, currently, a grid upgrade would essentially cannibalize the profits of Exelon and the other power companies. So it doesn't happen. IT isn't a conspiracy, it just is the fact that a company is not going to invest capital in projects that kill their profits. If I owned Exelon, I probably wouldn't either.

I am no expert, but it seems like splitting ownership of generation and transmission would do a lot of good here. When one shares interest in the other, we don't get a distributed grid. Government would have to enforce the splitting of ownership and making sure that those two conflicting interests don't collude. As we know, given how friendly BushCo is with energy, that nothing like that is going to happen soon.

As for higher taxes pushing up the dollar - hey, it is what they told me in macro econ class :). If you take money out with higher taxes, in theory, you are using it to pay down the debt (outbound to China). Now, thats a special problem, because China still pegs their currency to the dollar to some degree, so you might be robbing peter to pay paul.

No candidate is really talking about what would be really nice, which is to tax estates at like 100% of everything over a few million (no more paris hilton), eliminate corporate taxes (which is the most onerous middle class tax, since corporations are mostly just pass through vehicles for middle class wages), and raise taxes on 250k+, so we have a shot at paying off the debt. Reducing money taxed on the middle class, while adding strong incentives for the middle and lower (lets not forget lower - they usually get the shaft in this debate) savings would be a real powerful way to prop the dollar to a reasonable range. Maybe this isn't buying dollars back, but by moving the needle to more saving, less spending, some balance comes back.

I think the weak dollar policy of Bush has indeed helped keep us out of recession, but at a huge cost. Given that we entered the recession cycle early (hell, we just got out 4 years ago) - as a result of the housing crisis, we basically have two wrongs (housing crisis + weak dollar) trying to compensate for one another, and kinda doing so in some ways, but in the process, creating some really nasty longer term problems.

I want leadership for this country that is right more than its wrong. Obama has to speak to his base on taxes - thats a political reality. But he also, of all the politicians in this cycle, owes the least to anyone that I have seen get this far in a long time. It isn't nothing - every politician deals with lobbyists, just like you can't sail a vessel into the ocean and not pick up some barnicles. But his rapid rise actually helps.

For that matter, if Sarah Palin were at the top of the ticket, and did not have some views that, at least to be, are shockingly retrograde (i.e. teaching creationism in school) - I would get behind her.

A few salient points here with substance which I agree have contributed to the current situation. Though I would not pin the all blame on the current adminstration the way you have. It is always easy to look at failed policy and plans and point the finger directly at..in this case Bush...that finger can easily be pointed at the Dem run congress of the last 2 years if I remember correctly as a country we took on the dot com bust, 9/11 and were prospering from 2000-2006.

I dont think that an estate tax @ 100% and putting the burden of the debt on the most successful of americans is the right strategy to fix the current problem. B.O's plan....First, taxes. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens. The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)Plain and simple consumer confidence will go further in the tank with this kind of plan.

I am all for alternative energy to help subsidize the crisis. We need to continue spending on research to into wind, solar and other environmentally sound producers/savers of energy. I work very closely with these industries and have seen the incredible savings of saving power while living off the grid and then redistibuting it back to the power companies which inturn benefit the middleman(the everyday working american). We also need to be spending more dollars and building materials that produce better energy savings i.e L.E.E.D certified products. Pushing towards more greenbuild products will spur savings to the end user which will free up capital used for various staples and inturn help spur the economy. This needs to be done in conjunction with ramping up offshore drilling exploring the wastland that is ANWAR.

Rothko...grow a pair your skin seems a little thin. :thumbs:

[Fish2006]

Why all the hate on the estate tax? The estate tax taxes the least productive Americans - dead ones and ones living off the largesse of another's work. Heck, I like what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are doing - the kids enough to do most things, but not enough to do nothing (i.e. around $5M), the rest goes to charity.

Now, that said, if you think the most productive Americans are the ones who have the highest incomes, I think you should take a second look. For one, I can state with certainty that the higher you go up in corporate America, the less productive you tend to be. My hardest job I ever worked was doing the counter at a DQ when I was a teenager. Every job I have had since then has been easier and easier, the higher I have gone up the ladder.

The real rich are not that way because of productivity, they are that way because they a.) inherited it (old money) or b.) found a niche, worked hard, and took a risk.

That said, I am in favor of lower capital gains. And I think Obama is mistaken on that front. I never said he was perfect :) I think risk takers need to have a reasonable return on investment. What I don't think is that when they lose the bet, that the government should bail them out.

Obama, as far as I know, is in favor of keeping the cuts for everyone but people making over $250k AGI. And is in favor of removing the FICA cap above that level (or perhaps higher - need to check) - leaving a hole from around 110k to 250k or wherever, which is good, given that the money you make between around 110k and 200k is the highest tax money in the system - as that is where most of the current tax breaks level off and most people get hit with AMT.

As for programs, everyone has their pet programs, and Bush and McCain are no exception. I think it is unfair to just say XX programs == bad without looking at what they are and what might be being eliminated to compensate for them. If it is programs to, say, rebuild broken infrastructure like bridges and stuff, then its probably good. If it is a program that is, say, "free crack for teenagers", then probably not. MY guess is it probably more like the former than the latter.

[BoKnows]

I dont think being productive means you necessarily make a lot of money. Now I can agree that many of the fat cats in Corp america may not be the most productive as with many of the larger US companies the lower level employees do shoulder the load...to that degree you have to start somewhere. I can say that all of the successful individuals I know most making more than $250/yr consitantly, are small business owners working their asses off 50-60 hrs/week supporting employees with excellent benefits and it does not get any easier for them to stay on top year after year, I actually see them working harder year after year side by side with employees to keep their company engins running so they can provide jobs for hard working middle class americans. Many of these individuals are foregoing retirement and salary's during the down times in order to provide said jobs.

[Skinsfan]

From an economist's point of view, productivityis the amount of output per unit of input. Basically, GDP divided by employment.... So, in this context, the most productive people can be defined several ways:
A) People who spend lots of money in our economy
B) People who faciliate/produce the products to be consumed

Working the counter at DQ is certainly a HARD job... you're on your feet, etc.... But the most productive person at that DQ is the owner/franchisee who invested the money that allowed for that specific DQ to be built... or the store manager that makes sure the operation is going as smoothly as possible.... or the business manager who finds a way to be more efficient, and increase the revenue stream... they are supplying more to GDP than the poor guy working the counter.....

[Fish2006]

I dont think being productive means you necessarily make a lot of money. Now I can agree that many of the fat cats in Corp america may not be the most productive as with many of the larger US companies the lower level employees do shoulder the load...to that degree you have to start somewhere. I can say that all of the successful individuals I know most making more than $250/yr consitantly, are small business owners working their asses off 50-60 hrs/week supporting employees with excellent benefits and it does not get any easier for them to stay on top year after year, I actually see them working harder year after year side by side with employees to keep their company engins running so they can provide jobs for hard working middle class americans. Many of these individuals are foregoing retirement and salary's during the down times in order to provide said jobs.

But dont most of those business owners take most of their income through S-Corps or LLC/LLP structures and not W2 income? Most small business owners I know actually keep their expenses really low so that they can minimize their W2 income, and operate in the more tax efficient business tax system, which allows for a much higher range of deductions.

And god bless those people who are keeping things going. MY guess is that a lot of people in that situation keep some degree of retained earnings such that they can provide some small measure of job security for the people that work for them. Like I said, I think elimination of corporate taxes, especially on small businesses, would help those folks out a great deal. On that note, from the website:

Support Small Business

• Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.
• Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country.

Now, this isn't perfect, and I would hope that we add corp income taxes to the elimination of capital gains for small businesses, but the proposal actually seems like, at least, a good start.

[Fish2006]

From an economist's point of view, productivityis the amount of output per unit of input. Basically, GDP divided by employment.... So, in this context, the most productive people can be defined several ways:
A) People who spend lots of money in our economy
B) People who faciliate/produce the products to be consumed

Working the counter at DQ is certainly a HARD job... you're on your feet, etc.... But the most productive person at that DQ is the owner/franchisee who invested the money that allowed for that specific DQ to be built... or the store manager that makes sure the operation is going as smoothly as possible.... or the business manager who finds a way to be more efficient, and increase the revenue stream... they are supplying more to GDP than the poor guy working the counter.....

I agree - it was an error for me to confuse hard work and productivity. You are right, they are not the same thing. You can work very hard digging ditches, but the value of that may or may not be very economic.

Now, that said, lets see who the real benefactors were of the latest runup - the executives in big oil in the last 2 years. They had stock comp that went through the roof as a result of the runup in oil, that even they themselves admit they had almost nothing to do with (and if they did, ha, bad then too). They were lucky, certainly not productive.

Productivity happens with initiative to find efficiency, and the means to execute on that initiative. Investors get capital gains rates that are lower than W2 income rates exactly for that reason, and IMO, thats a good thing.

But if we are talking about W2 income, which is what is being raised, you have to admit that executives getting on average 300x the lowest person is an outsized reward for productivity that is probably a.) nowhere near that much higher and b.) is probably more towards the line manager where the action takes place. At the highest corporate level, compensation has much more to do with who you stack on your comp board than your capabilities. Investors should be rightly pissed that the managers of the companies they own are taking so much out of the enterprises they (us) own.

[FlyersFan]

But if we are talking about W2 income, which is what is being raised, you have to admit that executives getting on average 300x the lowest person is an outsized reward for productivity that is probably a.) nowhere near that much higher and b.) is probably more towards the line manager where the action takes place. At the highest corporate level, compensation has much more to do with who you stack on your comp board than your capabilities.

hey fish- i really really really resent you making everyone out to be some corporate lazy clown that does well in life. I started a business from scratch. if you've never done it you won't even have the faintest clue how hard it is. it's the hardest thing you can ever do work wise in life. you put all your eggs in a basket and take more risk than most people ever will in life. i employ people, purchase goods from other vendors etc.......and now i am penalized because my business was successful???....:dunno:

that fking pisses me off to no end when i hear you talk about "outsized rewards" and my blood is boiling as we type this.

you obviously seem to have something against people who do well in life. but go ahead, tax the **** out of me...and then all my workers can say bye bye to their child care, health care, bonuses etc....cause the government is going to have all my money.

dang that pisses me off fish that you lump everyone who does well in life into the category of lazy corporate guy. there are plenty of americans who do very well, never took a thing from anyone and now you want to penalize the entreprenuers in this country that are the life blood of what this country is supposed to be about.....?? :puke: typical fking liberal point of view.....

and who are you to judge whether someone making 400K earns it or not.?? my cousin worked his ASS off to get where he is and he works as hard as anyone and does very very well in a corporate environment.........

[Skinsfan]

flyers, tell us how you really feel... lol

[homedawg]

flyers, tell us how you really feel... lol

:thumbs:




Flyers, You are not alone! :beerbang:

[FlyersFan]

flyers, tell us how you really feel... lol

lol...you know skins, i just am trying to find the point where it became a bad thing to be successful in life and work hard.

that was just a bad broad based generalization that doesn't fly with me.

[Fish2006]

hey fish- i really really really resent you making everyone out to be some corporate lazy clown that does well in life. I started a business from scratch. if you've never done it you won't even have the faintest clue how hard it is. it's the hardest thing you can ever do work wise in life. you put all your eggs in a basket and take more risk than most people ever will in life. i employ people, purchase goods from other vendors etc.......and now i am penalized because my business was successful???....:dunno:

that fking pisses me off to no end when i hear you talk about "outsized rewards" and my blood is boiling as we type this.

you obviously seem to have something against people who do well in life. but go ahead, tax the **** out of me...and then all my workers can say bye bye to their child care, health care, bonuses etc....cause the government is going to have all my money.

dang that pisses me off fish that you lump everyone who does well in life into the category of lazy corporate guy. there are plenty of americans who do very well, never took a thing from anyone and now you want to penalize the entreprenuers in this country that are the life blood of what this country is supposed to be about.....?? :puke: typical fking liberal point of view.....

and who are you to judge whether someone making 400K earns it or not.?? my cousin worked his ASS off to get where he is and he works as hard as anyone and does very very well in a corporate environment.........

Hold on, relax... Im not attacking anyone for what they do.

But lets get real here for a second.

a.) There are things government has to do, because companies dont do it well (lets start with the ARMY, and go from there)
b.) Someone has to pay for it

If I am going to choose who to tax, my priority list goes like this:

1.) Dead people and people who receive money for free (estate tax)
2.) People who are doing well enough that the extra tax money wont hurt them (i.e. they will still have their 1st and second house, enough to eat, enough to fly commercial almost wherever they want, and enough to go to the titty bar at least once a week - something you can do easily on 200k even at 30% tax)
3.) People who are already struggling - 100k and lower primarily

The alternative is to tell grandma she gets no Medicare. You can talk to the moon about government programs and such, but thats like trying to solve a problem related to paying $1000 extra in mortgage on a $3k per month budget by eliminating a $50 cable bill. Important, yes, but not real impactful.

The reality is that we have a choice. Put our kids in a position where they will have to live with 50% and higher taxes the rest of their working lives, or bite the bullet now, and if you have the means to live with higher taxes (i.e. you aren't starving) - generally, you pay for them. The obligations coming up from medicare and social security are amazingly high. The obligations from the wars we might have to fight are amazingly high. The obligations from paying interest on the money we are borrowing to bail out Bear Stearns, Freddy Mac, and Fannie May, are incredibly high. The cost to solve global warming is incredibly high. That means we of means, and that really should be those of us who are doing well enough such that gas doesn't really matter that much, should be putting in more.

I don't want to punish anyone. But we either charge ourselves, or our kids, or the people who are making less than enough to pay the bills as it is. Cause someone is going to pay the bill.

[Fish2006]

lol...you know skins, i just am trying to find the point where it became a bad thing to be successful in life and work hard.

that was just a bad broad based generalization that doesn't fly with me.

It is ******* AWESOME that you do well. Anyone who does should feel good about that. Nobody is proposing we go back to what was in the Eisenhower years, with 90% marginal tax rates on the highest income. Hell, if I were in charge, I would get rid of state government, let the feds take over, and split the difference, which would get us on par with Europe for a total tax rate. They pay about as much in taxes, but get way ******* more in services. Our rates may "technically" be lower at the Fed level, but when you add up state, county, FICA, medicare, sales, bla, bla, bla, and thumb tax, we are actually higher than most places other than perhaps Scandanavia. And even there, at least they have hot chicks.

But meaning in life doesnt come from money. And frankly, under most plans, if you take the money you make and create more jobs, or invest it, you aren't being punished by higher rates on W2 wages anyway. Hell, you could take the money, start a series of small businesses, employ a ****load of people, and not pay a dime in taxes under Obama.

Thats the whole point. Creating a system that incentivizes that which is the best for the largest number of people is the goal. Having entrepreneurs work hard and create jobs - that is a GREAT thing. Nobody would argue with that.

What gets my goat is that it feels like the last 20 years (no, I am no Clinton fan either) we have been burning our house down in order to heat it. And we will stick our kids with the bill.

[Kevin]

I know how to fix the deficit and all financial issues.

Put free condom dispensers next to all public mailboxes in Los Angeles, New Orleans, NY.
Evander Holyfields house and Tacoma Washington.

Then all the people who are having 10-12 kids who shouldnt be having any kids wouldnt be having any kids and the welfare system wouldnt be so expensive and killing our taxes.

Also, round up all the illegal immigrants. Give them two choices. 1. GO HOME. 2. Male registers for our military for 4 years and earns citizenship. Rest of family registers, gets social security numbers and pays taxes on income instead of draining the system.

No fairness in being an illegal and draining our country of it's resources without being a productive member of society.

If I was an illegal, I too would wanna live here and take advantage of this great country's resources, but I'd sure as hell make sure I gave something back. My wife knows of ******* illegals filing 15 on their w-4 not paying a dime while collecting all kinds of neat benefits.

Something needs to change and fast. Our country is getting bought out by other countries and soon we're going to start having their morals, values and ideals shoved down our throats.

Mosques in your neighborhoods. Car bombings on U.S. soil. ETC. These ****ers need to get their **** straight. SOONER than later.

[Q-Unit]

Don't forget about Travis Henry