Will The Economy Ever Recover?
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
"Some recent millionaires that have renounced their citizenship and moved overseas include Mark Harris Getty and Christopher Ronald Getty, grandsons of John Paul Getty,67 Kenneth Dart, president of Dart containers Corp.,68 Michael Dingman, chairman of Abex,69 J. Mark Mobius, 70 Richard Minns,71 John Dorrance III, heir to the Campbell Soup fortune,72 John Templeton, 73 and Joseph Bogdanovich, vice chairman of H.R. Heinz Co"
The rich leaving should be expected. They have the means to leave and save themselves money. Are you so greedy that you don't intentionally pay more taxes than you have to?
Forcing them out of the country with higher taxes is money going out of this country and not creating jobs here. That is what high taxes do.
Lower taxes = people wanting to bring their money here and create jobs.
"Some recent millionaires that have renounced their citizenship and moved overseas include Mark Harris Getty and Christopher Ronald Getty, grandsons of John Paul Getty,67 Kenneth Dart, president of Dart containers Corp.,68 Michael Dingman, chairman of Abex,69 J. Mark Mobius, 70 Richard Minns,71 John Dorrance III, heir to the Campbell Soup fortune,72 John Templeton, 73 and Joseph Bogdanovich, vice chairman of H.R. Heinz Co"
The rich leaving should be expected. They have the means to leave and save themselves money. Are you so greedy that you don't intentionally pay more taxes than you have to?
Forcing them out of the country with higher taxes is money going out of this country and not creating jobs here. That is what high taxes do.
Lower taxes = people wanting to bring their money here and create jobs.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
People bring up Japan as an example. In the last twenty years, has number of homeless in Japan went up?
yes, it has. There have been articles in magazines like The Economist describing homeless people who used to be white collar office workers even.
Quote:
Are there more people in Japan sleeping hungry? Are there more destitute people in Japan now than there were 20 years ago?
probably. Last month or so it came to light that people have not been reporting the death of elderly relatives in order to be able to collect their pensions and it seems to be a widespread issue, probably enough to affect their longevity metrics.
Quote:
. How has the stagnation in the Japanese economy for the past twenty years has affected their middle class?
I honestly do not know.
it has as far as growth in wages and employment rates go.
Quote:
On the other hand, middle class in China and India have prospered in that time period. Has their prosperity came at the expense of some other country's middle class?
very unlikely. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game as long as the limited resources are used sensibly.
People bring up Japan as an example. In the last twenty years, has number of homeless in Japan went up?
yes, it has. There have been articles in magazines like The Economist describing homeless people who used to be white collar office workers even.
Quote:
Are there more people in Japan sleeping hungry? Are there more destitute people in Japan now than there were 20 years ago?
probably. Last month or so it came to light that people have not been reporting the death of elderly relatives in order to be able to collect their pensions and it seems to be a widespread issue, probably enough to affect their longevity metrics.
Quote:
. How has the stagnation in the Japanese economy for the past twenty years has affected their middle class?
I honestly do not know.
it has as far as growth in wages and employment rates go.
Quote:
On the other hand, middle class in China and India have prospered in that time period. Has their prosperity came at the expense of some other country's middle class?
very unlikely. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game as long as the limited resources are used sensibly.
Quote:
Problem is, how do you recommend we deal with all the ill-prepared older people dying in the streets?
Amazing statement. If you want to relieve yourself of some of your money, send it to a private charity which will do far better with it than will government.
How many people were taught in our wonderful public indoctrination centers on how to plan for your retirement and save money in detail? These things are not simply not taught and we wonder why there is a problem.
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Couple this with the debt based monetary policy (both passed at nearly the same time) and you have a system designed to keep people poorer, in debt, and dependent on the government. This is fully intentional and has been going for a very long time.
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
Problem is, how do you recommend we deal with all the ill-prepared older people dying in the streets?
Amazing statement. If you want to relieve yourself of some of your money, send it to a private charity which will do far better with it than will government.
How many people were taught in our wonderful public indoctrination centers on how to plan for your retirement and save money in detail? These things are not simply not taught and we wonder why there is a problem.
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Couple this with the debt based monetary policy (both passed at nearly the same time) and you have a system designed to keep people poorer, in debt, and dependent on the government. This is fully intentional and has been going for a very long time.
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
"Some recent millionaires that have renounced their citizenship and moved overseas include Mark Harris Getty and Christopher Ronald Getty, grandsons of John Paul Getty,67 Kenneth Dart, president of Dart containers Corp.,68 Michael Dingman, chairman of Abex,69 J. Mark Mobius, 70 Richard Minns,71 John Dorrance III, heir to the Campbell Soup fortune,72 John Templeton, 73 and Joseph Bogdanovich, vice chairman of H.R. Heinz Co"
The rich leaving should be expected. They have the means to leave and save themselves money. Are you so greedy that you don't intentionally pay more taxes than you have to?
Forcing them out of the country with higher taxes is money going out of this country and not creating jobs here. That is what high taxes do.
Lower taxes = people wanting to bring their money here and create jobs.
Generally I would tend to agree with you. But in the case of these expatriots they arent trying to pay lower taxes, they are trying to pay next to NO taxes. While at the same time some of them still have corporations based here that enjoy those benfits provided them ie the military that protects their assets, the infrastructure that allows their assets to be moved as commerce, the trade policies and patent infringment laws that protect their investments/assets.
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
Now if you want to discuss what is a fair and equitable tax rate we could probably agree, but pulling up and leaving while still enjoying all the benefits is a WEAK proposition to defend in my book.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
"Some recent millionaires that have renounced their citizenship and moved overseas include Mark Harris Getty and Christopher Ronald Getty, grandsons of John Paul Getty,67 Kenneth Dart, president of Dart containers Corp.,68 Michael Dingman, chairman of Abex,69 J. Mark Mobius, 70 Richard Minns,71 John Dorrance III, heir to the Campbell Soup fortune,72 John Templeton, 73 and Joseph Bogdanovich, vice chairman of H.R. Heinz Co"
The rich leaving should be expected. They have the means to leave and save themselves money. Are you so greedy that you don't intentionally pay more taxes than you have to?
Forcing them out of the country with higher taxes is money going out of this country and not creating jobs here. That is what high taxes do.
Lower taxes = people wanting to bring their money here and create jobs.
Generally I would tend to agree with you. But in the case of these expatriots they arent trying to pay lower taxes, they are trying to pay next to NO taxes. While at the same time some of them still have corporations based here that enjoy those benfits provided them ie the military that protects their assets, the infrastructure that allows their assets to be moved as commerce, the trade policies and patent infringment laws that protect their investments/assets.
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
Now if you want to discuss what is a fair and equitable tax rate we could probably agree, but pulling up and leaving while still enjoying all the benefits is a WEAK proposition to defend in my book.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
This, I can agree with 100% You cant expect the top 2% to carry 50% of the burden, for very long at least.
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
This, I can agree with 100% You cant expect the top 2% to carry 50% of the burden, for very long at least.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
If one wants to yank away the safety nets... easy bankruptcy (already gone), unemployment benefits... how would that help the circle of deflation?
How would removing (even more) consumer confidence help?
People have the same amount of money they did several years ago, it's just not trading hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
So who cares if the federal reserve is printing lots of notes if they aren't doing anything?
Ah, classic Keynesianism, that has kept Japan in a funk for 20 years with massive government spending. The reason we are not out of this is because businesses are not spending or investing.
Why? Government debt. Why? Because the higher income types (the "evil" rich people) that create jobs know that they will be footing the bill for all of this debt incurred by the government. So they are holding on to what they have now so they can have more later.
This is why government spending and debt is BAD for an economy and why ours will not recover for some time.
If one wants to yank away the safety nets... easy bankruptcy (already gone), unemployment benefits... how would that help the circle of deflation?
How would removing (even more) consumer confidence help?
People have the same amount of money they did several years ago, it's just not trading hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
So who cares if the federal reserve is printing lots of notes if they aren't doing anything?
Ah, classic Keynesianism, that has kept Japan in a funk for 20 years with massive government spending. The reason we are not out of this is because businesses are not spending or investing.
Why? Government debt. Why? Because the higher income types (the "evil" rich people) that create jobs know that they will be footing the bill for all of this debt incurred by the government. So they are holding on to what they have now so they can have more later.
This is why government spending and debt is BAD for an economy and why ours will not recover for some time.
Quote:
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
So you want to eliminate their property rights?
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
So you want to eliminate their property rights?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
Good gawd Gary while there is always a seed of truth at some massively general level in your statements, the fact is the world is a much better place than it was 500 years ago. There has been real technological progress and the emergence of societies where the masses are not living and the edge of poverty while a tiny fractions of kings and landlords squeeze every drop out of the common folk. But having lived most of your life as one of the small group of the fortunate (the US babyboomer) that benefitted from the greatest economic windfall in the history of civilization (post war America which had ^no global competition from a war torn world), I can see how this is so hard for you. My daughter always kicks and screams the loudest after we spoil her with toys and then withdraw it for a few days.
So, I guess I should be totally comfortable and accepting of the other shoe dropping on the greatest amassing of wealth in modern history ..with my lifestyle and the nation's economic clout being brokered away for the benefit of the financiers and money changers?
I should cheer this along? I should say "Hey, we're sinking, but let's not all be in this together as a nation. That's reserved for wars and other stuff. It's slide or be slid ..and let's give the smartest and most cunning rats a chance at the brass ring .even if we are fully aware (well, they don't really teach us this, it's acquired vision) that it's really a game of musical chairs and a whole bunch of you suckers will be left standing at every dance party ..where you're asked to pay the bill.
That's what I'm supposed to be celebrating? For your margin and call?
No thanks.
Good gawd Gary while there is always a seed of truth at some massively general level in your statements, the fact is the world is a much better place than it was 500 years ago. There has been real technological progress and the emergence of societies where the masses are not living and the edge of poverty while a tiny fractions of kings and landlords squeeze every drop out of the common folk. But having lived most of your life as one of the small group of the fortunate (the US babyboomer) that benefitted from the greatest economic windfall in the history of civilization (post war America which had ^no global competition from a war torn world), I can see how this is so hard for you. My daughter always kicks and screams the loudest after we spoil her with toys and then withdraw it for a few days.
So, I guess I should be totally comfortable and accepting of the other shoe dropping on the greatest amassing of wealth in modern history ..with my lifestyle and the nation's economic clout being brokered away for the benefit of the financiers and money changers?
I should cheer this along? I should say "Hey, we're sinking, but let's not all be in this together as a nation. That's reserved for wars and other stuff. It's slide or be slid ..and let's give the smartest and most cunning rats a chance at the brass ring .even if we are fully aware (well, they don't really teach us this, it's acquired vision) that it's really a game of musical chairs and a whole bunch of you suckers will be left standing at every dance party ..where you're asked to pay the bill.
That's what I'm supposed to be celebrating? For your margin and call?
No thanks.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Because the higher income types (the "evil" rich people) that create jobs know that they will be footing the bill for all of this debt incurred by the government. So they are holding on to what they have now so they can have more later.
Actually, many of them (especially bank owners), profit handsomely from it! I think it's part of "the plan". Tax free interest income.
Because the higher income types (the "evil" rich people) that create jobs know that they will be footing the bill for all of this debt incurred by the government. So they are holding on to what they have now so they can have more later.
Actually, many of them (especially bank owners), profit handsomely from it! I think it's part of "the plan". Tax free interest income.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
So it's the poor and middle class that oppose the flat tax, right?
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Problem is, how do you recommend we deal with all the ill-prepared older people dying in the streets?
Amazing statement. If you want to relieve yourself of some of your money, send it to a private charity which will do far better with it than will government.
This is where I think you are totally wrong. Private charities do very little for the needy with the money they are given all the while being a nonprofit tax free enterprise. What is it, usually like 5-10% of the money goes to aid. The rest pays high salaries to the administrators.
Quote:
How many people were taught in our wonderful public indoctrination centers on how to plan for your retirement and save money in detail? These things are not simply not taught and we wonder why there is a problem.
The problem is over half of the economy is supported by consumers. If everyoine is saving you would have other problems.
Quote:
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Did all the tax breaks for the rich we've had do anything but make the rich richer? There are a lot of arguments for and against progressive income tax, but if you are a productive worker who is being paid little what matters if you didn't pay a higher tax rate? You still created wealth that is being taxed whether or not you were payed what you were worth. If people at the top don't want a flatter distibution of income why should they get a flatter tax rate.
Quote:
Couple this with the debt based monetary policy (both passed at nearly the same time) and you have a system designed to keep people poorer, in debt, and dependent on the government. This is fully intentional and has been going for a very long time.
I can't say I disagree but I think it is the banking and Walstreet that wants it that way.
Quote:
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
It is what we have and if anything the middle class and upper middle class pay too high of the share vs the top 5%.
Quote:
Problem is, how do you recommend we deal with all the ill-prepared older people dying in the streets?
Amazing statement. If you want to relieve yourself of some of your money, send it to a private charity which will do far better with it than will government.
This is where I think you are totally wrong. Private charities do very little for the needy with the money they are given all the while being a nonprofit tax free enterprise. What is it, usually like 5-10% of the money goes to aid. The rest pays high salaries to the administrators.
Quote:
How many people were taught in our wonderful public indoctrination centers on how to plan for your retirement and save money in detail? These things are not simply not taught and we wonder why there is a problem.
The problem is over half of the economy is supported by consumers. If everyoine is saving you would have other problems.
Quote:
The progressive income tax (that all of the class warriors love) is a SIN TAX on getting rich. Yes, the government is actively, intentionally, and with forethought keeping it's people poorer via the tax code.
Did all the tax breaks for the rich we've had do anything but make the rich richer? There are a lot of arguments for and against progressive income tax, but if you are a productive worker who is being paid little what matters if you didn't pay a higher tax rate? You still created wealth that is being taxed whether or not you were payed what you were worth. If people at the top don't want a flatter distibution of income why should they get a flatter tax rate.
Quote:
Couple this with the debt based monetary policy (both passed at nearly the same time) and you have a system designed to keep people poorer, in debt, and dependent on the government. This is fully intentional and has been going for a very long time.
I can't say I disagree but I think it is the banking and Walstreet that wants it that way.
Quote:
Quote:
making 30x the salary of any one of them for the same 40 hours, shouldnt his taxes be proportionately higher?
Proportionately is reasonable, but that is not what we have.
It is what we have and if anything the middle class and upper middle class pay too high of the share vs the top 5%.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
This is where I think you are totally wrong. Private charities do very little for the needy with the money they are given all the while being a nonprofit tax free enterprise. What is it, usually like 5-10% of the money goes to aid. The rest pays high salaries to the administrators.
Oh, quite right. Most charities become "institutions unto themselves". It's more of the "success driven" thing. You make your organization grow until it turns into a big machine that gets hungry. The object of your mission ends up being the necessary economic lubricant to keep it running.
This is somewhat different than the "tax exempt association". That's where you belong to another form of institution where your donations and contributions are tax exempt, but you, more or less, spend it on yourselves. You build private alternative schools and summer camps and larger buildings to hold events in ....and then some talk show host says that you're among those who are far more charitable than others.
This is where I think you are totally wrong. Private charities do very little for the needy with the money they are given all the while being a nonprofit tax free enterprise. What is it, usually like 5-10% of the money goes to aid. The rest pays high salaries to the administrators.
Oh, quite right. Most charities become "institutions unto themselves". It's more of the "success driven" thing. You make your organization grow until it turns into a big machine that gets hungry. The object of your mission ends up being the necessary economic lubricant to keep it running.
This is somewhat different than the "tax exempt association". That's where you belong to another form of institution where your donations and contributions are tax exempt, but you, more or less, spend it on yourselves. You build private alternative schools and summer camps and larger buildings to hold events in ....and then some talk show host says that you're among those who are far more charitable than others.
Quote:
It is what we have and if anything the middle class and upper middle class pay too high of the share vs the top 5%.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Please explain.
Quote:
Private charities do very little for the needy
Please provide a cite.
Quote:
If everyoine is saving you would have other problems.
It's called investing...for your retirement. That money goes into new businesses and creates jobs. You are obsessed with the flawed demand side, fixed model.
It is what we have and if anything the middle class and upper middle class pay too high of the share vs the top 5%.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Please explain.
Quote:
Private charities do very little for the needy
Please provide a cite.
Quote:
If everyoine is saving you would have other problems.
It's called investing...for your retirement. That money goes into new businesses and creates jobs. You are obsessed with the flawed demand side, fixed model.
There would be no requirement for contribution and no defined benefit. In other words it would be useless for the needy even putting aside the paltry 5% or so that would make it to the needy. At least Soc Security defines the contribution and the benefit and doesn't purport to make anyone a profit.
If you are going to rely on everyone out of the goodness of their own heart to help the elderly and needy, then might as well just do it directly and bypass the charity orginization middle men. Problem is the people who are needy don't tend to know anyone in a position to contribute in the first place.
Like most ideas of the privatize-anything-and-everything school of thought, it doesn't accurately take into account human nature or history. How many times does it have to be said that we've had more privatization and lower taxes many times in the past and the same or worse issues?
If you are going to rely on everyone out of the goodness of their own heart to help the elderly and needy, then might as well just do it directly and bypass the charity orginization middle men. Problem is the people who are needy don't tend to know anyone in a position to contribute in the first place.
Like most ideas of the privatize-anything-and-everything school of thought, it doesn't accurately take into account human nature or history. How many times does it have to be said that we've had more privatization and lower taxes many times in the past and the same or worse issues?
Oh [censored] Tempest, not this tired argument again. Your little "sources" show one tax - personal income tax. Add up FICA, sales, property, and all other taxes and the top 1% pays 40% argument becomes hogwash.
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/co_whopays_factsheet.pdf
There it is for CO. You can find it state by state. This bull [censored] argument about oh, the rich pay all the taxes is just that, bull.
There it is for CO. You can find it state by state. This bull [censored] argument about oh, the rich pay all the taxes is just that, bull.
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/nv_whopays_factsheet.pdf
There it is for Nevada Tempest. Oh those rich 1% - paying 5 times less in total taxes then the bottom 20%
There it is for Nevada Tempest. Oh those rich 1% - paying 5 times less in total taxes then the bottom 20%
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
So you want to eliminate their property rights?
What Constitutional rights in America does a citizen of Belise hold?
They are the ones who decided to ex patriate...should there be no consequences? Should they be allowed to enjoy the benefits while paying nothing for that privledge?
Quote:
I just cant agree with you, if they want to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, then they should lose their hard assets located here as well.
So you want to eliminate their property rights?
What Constitutional rights in America does a citizen of Belise hold?
They are the ones who decided to ex patriate...should there be no consequences? Should they be allowed to enjoy the benefits while paying nothing for that privledge?
I feel like this thread is going round and round........maybe we should be asking the question:
How do we lessen the impact of this economic situation (duration unknown) on our families and extended loved ones?
How do we lessen the impact of this economic situation (duration unknown) on our families and extended loved ones?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
