1 10 50

2009-12-02T11:12:28-08:00

2009-07-22T22:49:29-07:00

524457

false

503

active

1205

524457

We are just setting ourselves up for another burst bubble if we do not reconcile our tax rates. There were ZERO economic meltdowns, ZERO collapses, ZERO depressions while our top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 90%. Yet, at every point in American history where the top tax rate was cut significantly there has soon followed a major economic calamity. These include the 1st Great Depression (which followed the slashing of top rates in the 20s, leading to a short-lived bubble which quickly burst) and our current Great Big Depression (we've now had 3 decades of taxes for the richest being cut and 3 decades of continual wall street tom-foolery and continued hardship felt by the rest of working Americans). Reversing Bushie's tax cut is a start, but nothing significant will result unless we reconcile the tax rate back to what it was during the most prosperous time in recent American history, where we actually had a middle class.

We are just setting ourselves up for another burst bubble if we do not reconcile our tax rates. There were ZERO economic meltdowns, ZERO collapses, ZERO depressions while our top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 90%. Yet, at every point in American history where the top tax rate was cut significantly there has soon followed a major economic calamity. These include the 1st Great Depression (which followed the slashing of top rates in the 20s, leading to a short-lived bubble which quickly burst) and our current Great Big Depression (we’ve now had 3 decades of taxes for the richest being cut and 3 decades of continual wall street tom-foolery and continued hardship felt by the rest of working Americans). Reversing Bushie’s tax cut is a start, but nothing significant will result unless we reconcile the tax rate back to what it was during the most prosperous time in recent American history, where we actually had a middle class.

2009-07-22T22:49:29-07:00

25231

true

false

published

2009-07-22T22:49:29-07:00

1205

524457

Very nice cooking of the books, unfortunately your two assertion are not factually related to your conclusion; but other than that, very convincing to the uninformed. Try looking up what happened to any economy that taxes away 50% or better of the populationâ€™s income. Oh and by the way you can kiss goodbye any thought that those earning less than $250K will not get a tax increase. Gosh I love how all you class warfare guys what to slit the throats of the producers in this country and blame the resulting disaster on your victims. For those of you who have had enough of the Fascist/socialist change Iâ€™ll see you all at the next â€œTea Partyâ€*. Cheers! H. Evers

Very nice cooking of the books, unfortunately your two assertion are not factually related to your conclusion; but other than that, very convincing to the uninformed. Try looking up what happened to any economy that taxes away 50% or better of the populationâ€™s income. Oh and by the way you can kiss goodbye any thought that those earning less than $250K will not get a tax increase. Gosh I love how all you class warfare guys what to slit the throats of the producers in this country and blame the resulting disaster on your victims. For those of you who have had enough of the Fascist/socialist change Iâ€™ll see you all at the next â€œTea Partyâ€*. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-03T10:55:34-07:00

25608

false

true

published

2009-08-03T10:55:34-07:00

2059

524457

Yep, Fascist and Socialist Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter....all of them presided over an economy that was GROWING while maintaining dignified tax rates where those who make more than I could dream get taxed like the money makers they are. It is too bad that average people have been conned into thinking that taxes define their lives...when your discretionary income comes in the millions of dollars then it is easy to see how taxes would bother you, but it wasn't until everyone forget what happened after the 20s when money was loose and morals were looser that Reagan pulled the rug out from beneath the middle class in favor of low taxes for the rich. Also in the news today, we have now achieved the biggest drop in tax revenues since the Great Depression! Seems like if that were any sort of accomplishment though, we'd all be in a better spot...rather than the second great depression.

Yep, Fascist and Socialist Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter….all of them presided over an economy that was GROWING while maintaining dignified tax rates where those who make more than I could dream get taxed like the money makers they are. It is too bad that average people have been conned into thinking that taxes define their lives…when your discretionary income comes in the millions of dollars then it is easy to see how taxes would bother you, but it wasn’t until everyone forget what happened after the 20s when money was loose and morals were looser that Reagan pulled the rug out from beneath the middle class in favor of low taxes for the rich. Also in the news today, we have now achieved the biggest drop in tax revenues since the Great Depression! Seems like if that were any sort of accomplishment though, we’d all be in a better spot…rather than the second great depression.

2009-08-03T18:16:58-07:00

25617

true

false

published

2009-08-03T18:16:58-07:00

1205

524457

Well you got some of the playerâ€™s right. The Roosevelts (Teddy and FDR), Truman, and Johnson all believed in government control of the economy. But you missed Wilson and as a founding member of international Fascism that really is a shame. As to tax revenue and the drop there in it just goes to show what happens when those who pay all the bills (the wealthy who you seem to despise so much) do not make all of the â€œexcessiveâ€* wealth you are talking about. You seem to think that the economic pie is just so big and that if the producers and builders get what they earn it will not leave anything for you. You want to hobble the engine of growth through taxes so that you â€œget yoursâ€*. Unfortunately it does not work that way. The more Capital you remove from the market place the slower growth becomes. Remove enough and the economic pie stops growing and will shrink. You need to take the blinders of envy and hate off your eyes and look at the real economic facts. Cheers! H. Evers

Well you got some of the playerâ€™s right. The Roosevelts (Teddy and FDR), Truman, and Johnson all believed in government control of the economy. But you missed Wilson and as a founding member of international Fascism that really is a shame. As to tax revenue and the drop there in it just goes to show what happens when those who pay all the bills (the wealthy who you seem to despise so much) do not make all of the â€œexcessiveâ€* wealth you are talking about. You seem to think that the economic pie is just so big and that if the producers and builders get what they earn it will not leave anything for you. You want to hobble the engine of growth through taxes so that you â€œget yoursâ€*. Unfortunately it does not work that way. The more Capital you remove from the market place the slower growth becomes. Remove enough and the economic pie stops growing and will shrink. You need to take the blinders of envy and hate off your eyes and look at the real economic facts. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-04T05:29:52-07:00

25628

false

true

published

2009-08-04T05:29:52-07:00

2059

524457

You do realize that for all your posturing, your position has been employed for the last 30 years, right? You'd think that with that sort of track-record we'd have something to show for it? If low taxes on the rich and faulty regulation and zero taxes on dividends and capitol gains were really good things for all of America, then why are we in such a chronically bad position? Keep in mind that this big fat depression we are in is not the first protrusion of reality into "economic theory", have you forgotten Savings & Loan scandals? Have you forgotten what the term "bubble" means when referencing economic growth? That is what we have had for the last 30 years...bubbles...all popped....your 30 years of capitalistic heyday is punctuated by the fact that none of its progress is real and none of its progress has lasted. If your way were the only way, we'd all be better off now. When it comes to looking at reality, you've chosen pontificating instead. I have no pity for people who make loads of money, and if I were one of them I would not expect anyone to pity me either, yet it seems you are prescribing a version of capitalism that besets the largest amount of deference and pity upon the most advantaged in our society...that is not called fascism, it is called corporatism. Restore the taxes that rich Americans were always dutifully bound to pay and maybe we'd have less slimy greedy corruption rampaging around Washington and the media. Not to mention a tax revenue base that doesn't convulse and require our budgets to be made up of foreign loans.

You do realize that for all your posturing, your position has been employed for the last 30 years, right? You’d think that with that sort of track-record we’d have something to show for it? If low taxes on the rich and faulty regulation and zero taxes on dividends and capitol gains were really good things for all of America, then why are we in such a chronically bad position? Keep in mind that this big fat depression we are in is not the first protrusion of reality into “economic theory”, have you forgotten Savings & Loan scandals? Have you forgotten what the term “bubble” means when referencing economic growth? That is what we have had for the last 30 years…bubbles…all popped….your 30 years of capitalistic heyday is punctuated by the fact that none of its progress is real and none of its progress has lasted. If your way were the only way, we’d all be better off now. When it comes to looking at reality, you’ve chosen pontificating instead. I have no pity for people who make loads of money, and if I were one of them I would not expect anyone to pity me either, yet it seems you are prescribing a version of capitalism that besets the largest amount of deference and pity upon the most advantaged in our society…that is not called fascism, it is called corporatism. Restore the taxes that rich Americans were always dutifully bound to pay and maybe we’d have less slimy greedy corruption rampaging around Washington and the media. Not to mention a tax revenue base that doesn’t convulse and require our budgets to be made up of foreign loans.

2009-08-04T09:06:59-07:00

25637

true

false

published

2009-08-04T09:06:59-07:00

1205

524457

Mr. Sugar, 1. There are no low taxes on the rich please see my post on who pays taxes in this country (just below this). 2. The financial collapse we are currently suffering through was directly caused by Government forcing lenders to provide funding to individuals who were incapable of repaying the loan. The pseudo-Guarantees offered by Freddy and Fanny opened the door for bundling of securities and with the government looking on Investment houses were encouraged to get involved since it was the â€œright thing to doâ€*. In short the same people who are now running the government were the same ones who caused the problem. 3. The Savings and Loan collapse was caused by the Federal Governments change in the banking law which removed the advantage Savings and Loans had operated under since the 1930s and placed them in direct competition with the big banks. Besides which this is just another Non Sequetor argument. 4. Actual Capitalism is not practiced in this country and most of the problems you site accrue from that fact. When a business fails it fails under Capitalism not so in the USA today. When a business succeeds it grows but that is not the case in the USA. The government, all for the best reasons, seeks to protect to insure success, to guarantee equality of outcome and all it succeeds in doing is cause the system to fluctuate wildly and fail periodically. The solution? Well of course adopt the "Fair Tax". Cheers H. Evers

Mr. Sugar, 1. There are no low taxes on the rich please see my post on who pays taxes in this country (just below this). 2. The financial collapse we are currently suffering through was directly caused by Government forcing lenders to provide funding to individuals who were incapable of repaying the loan. The pseudo-Guarantees offered by Freddy and Fanny opened the door for bundling of securities and with the government looking on Investment houses were encouraged to get involved since it was the â€œright thing to doâ€*. In short the same people who are now running the government were the same ones who caused the problem. 3. The Savings and Loan collapse was caused by the Federal Governments change in the banking law which removed the advantage Savings and Loans had operated under since the 1930s and placed them in direct competition with the big banks. Besides which this is just another Non Sequetor argument. 4. Actual Capitalism is not practiced in this country and most of the problems you site accrue from that fact. When a business fails it fails under Capitalism not so in the USA today. When a business succeeds it grows but that is not the case in the USA. The government, all for the best reasons, seeks to protect to insure success, to guarantee equality of outcome and all it succeeds in doing is cause the system to fluctuate wildly and fail periodically. The solution? Well of course adopt the “Fair Tax”. Cheers H. Evers

2009-08-04T10:00:07-07:00

25643

false

true

published

2009-08-04T10:00:07-07:00

2059

524457

1. That's simply false. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as it's been since the 1920's. 2. The financial collapse is the result of a long-term, secular decline in the productive power of the American economy since about 1966. This was when the rate of physical depreciation on public infrastructure fixed investments began to exceed the rate at which new infrastructure was being built. That in turn has steadily increased the costs of domestic production. In order to compensate for the decline in actual production, the US has piled up a massive amount of financial obligations since the Vietnam War era. In 2007, this system reached a critical point of instability, and the financial aggregates began to decline, starting with the weakest point in this house of cards - the subprime region of the mortgage market, where Wall Street and the City of London had created inherently fraudulent derivatives "products" to sell off the subprime mortgages, which themselves were generally extended under fraudulent terms or conditions. 3. Not really. The S&L crisis was due to the long-running bankruptcy of the financial-monetary system, as previously described. In order to prop up the big bubble, the S&L's were deregulated, at which point rampant fraud began to take place within these institutions. 4. Are you talking about the current US government? Certainly you're right that it's bad economics and horrible morality to prop up failed financial institutions (for strategically important productive industries it's sometimes a different story), but I find it hilarious that you think the government wants to guarantee equality of outcomes. This could not be further from the truth - the present government is trying to ensure that certain favored "too big to fail" institutions (or more accurately, cartels and criminal syndicates) are kept in business (i.e., the Goldman Sucks Gang, the JP Morgan Mafia). The "too small to saves" are told to eat cake. So, basically, you've got it totally wrong - the current government isn't socialist, it's fascist (e.g., the takeover of government by corporations).

1. That’s simply false. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as it’s been since the 1920’s. 2. The financial collapse is the result of a long-term, secular decline in the productive power of the American economy since about 1966. This was when the rate of physical depreciation on public infrastructure fixed investments began to exceed the rate at which new infrastructure was being built. That in turn has steadily increased the costs of domestic production. In order to compensate for the decline in actual production, the US has piled up a massive amount of financial obligations since the Vietnam War era. In 2007, this system reached a critical point of instability, and the financial aggregates began to decline, starting with the weakest point in this house of cards – the subprime region of the mortgage market, where Wall Street and the City of London had created inherently fraudulent derivatives “products” to sell off the subprime mortgages, which themselves were generally extended under fraudulent terms or conditions. 3. Not really. The S&L crisis was due to the long-running bankruptcy of the financial-monetary system, as previously described. In order to prop up the big bubble, the S&L’s were deregulated, at which point rampant fraud began to take place within these institutions. 4. Are you talking about the current US government? Certainly you’re right that it’s bad economics and horrible morality to prop up failed financial institutions (for strategically important productive industries it’s sometimes a different story), but I find it hilarious that you think the government wants to guarantee equality of outcomes. This could not be further from the truth – the present government is trying to ensure that certain favored “too big to fail” institutions (or more accurately, cartels and criminal syndicates) are kept in business (i.e., the Goldman Sucks Gang, the JP Morgan Mafia). The “too small to saves” are told to eat cake. So, basically, you’ve got it totally wrong – the current government isn’t socialist, it’s fascist (e.g., the takeover of government by corporations).

2009-08-26T15:31:14-07:00

25996

true

false

published

2009-08-26T15:31:14-07:00

8735

524457

Well letâ€™s start by correcting your â€œinteresting idea on the subprime meltdown: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 and the failure of congress to control Freddy and Fanny started a chain of events that caused the melt down. The federal government made the subprime mortgage mess inevitable when it imposed social engineering rules on private mortgage contracts. The long process began with the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the regulatory bureaucracy that these two legislative acts required. A 1995 amendment to the CRA allowed mortgages made under this law to be bundled and â€œsecuritizedâ€*. The Bonds resulting from the â€œbundlingâ€* were government guaranteed and sold as â€œAAAâ€*. The AAA rating was an illusion that was ignored by bank regulators, the overseers of pension funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Once this bundling of Freddy and Fanny mortgages started others in private finance followed suit. These bonds not insured by the government were also given a high rating. From the late 1990s into 2005, the subprime share of mortgage lending exploded from about 5-6% to over 20% and was substantially responsible for the double-digit gains in home prices a few years ago. Then prime mortgage borrowers balked at buying homes with prices twice as high as normal in relation to income. Prices began to decline. You know the rest of the story as it unfolded in the last two years. I can understand how you got the tax rate wrong but this one was easy and you missed it by a mile. Cheers H. Evers

Well letâ€™s start by correcting your â€œinteresting idea on the subprime meltdown: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 and the failure of congress to control Freddy and Fanny started a chain of events that caused the melt down. The federal government made the subprime mortgage mess inevitable when it imposed social engineering rules on private mortgage contracts. The long process began with the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the regulatory bureaucracy that these two legislative acts required. A 1995 amendment to the CRA allowed mortgages made under this law to be bundled and â€œsecuritizedâ€*. The Bonds resulting from the â€œbundlingâ€* were government guaranteed and sold as â€œAAAâ€*. The AAA rating was an illusion that was ignored by bank regulators, the overseers of pension funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Once this bundling of Freddy and Fanny mortgages started others in private finance followed suit. These bonds not insured by the government were also given a high rating. From the late 1990s into 2005, the subprime share of mortgage lending exploded from about 5-6% to over 20% and was substantially responsible for the double-digit gains in home prices a few years ago. Then prime mortgage borrowers balked at buying homes with prices twice as high as normal in relation to income. Prices began to decline. You know the rest of the story as it unfolded in the last two years. I can understand how you got the tax rate wrong but this one was easy and you missed it by a mile. Cheers H. Evers

2009-08-28T12:10:47-07:00

26050

false

true

published

2009-08-28T12:10:47-07:00

2059

524457

â€œNot really. The S&L crisis was due to the long-running bankruptcy of the financial-monetary system, as previously described. In order to prop up the big bubble, the S&Lâ€™s were deregulated, at which point rampant fraud began to take place within these institutions.â€* Well this is just, oh how do I put this succinctly? WRONG! In order to prop up the big bubble? What big bubble the savings and loan crisis happened in the 1980s 20 years before any housing bubble so just what the heck are you talking about? That said a few of the reasons for the S&L collapse were: Federal deposit insurance, which was extended to S&Ls in 1934, was the root cause of the S&L crisis. In exchange for changing their lending practices from rather short term 7 to 15 Year mortgages to 30 year mortgages S&Ls gained Federal Insurance on deposits. Now remember this was the depression and the Government then as now thought it had the solution to all economic problems. Unfortunately deposit insurance was actuarially unsound from its inception, primarily because all S&Ls were charged the same insurance premium rate regardless of how safe or risky they were. However the deal was made the S&Ls got insurance and the Government got long term loans at low payment rates. Good goal bad economics. Why? Because S&L depended on short term passbook savings to fund their long term loans. Borrowing short to lend long was the financial structure that federal policy effectively forced S&Ls to follow in the aftermath of the great depression. S&Ls used short-term passbook savings to fund long-term, fixed-rate home mortgages. Although the long-term, fixed-rate mortgage may have been an admirable public-policy objective, the federal government picked the wrong horseâ€”the S&L industryâ€”to do this type of lending because S&Ls funded themselves primarily with short-term deposits. The dangers inherent in this â€œmaturity mismatchingâ€* became evident every time short-tern interest rates rose. S&Ls, stuck with long-term loans at fixed rates, often had to pay more to their depositors than they were making on their mortgages. In 1981 and 1982 the interest rate spreads for S&Ls (the difference between the average interest rate on their mortgage portfolios and their average cost of funds) were âˆ’1.0 percent and âˆ’0.7 percent, respectively. Disaster struck after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, decided in October 1979 to restrict the growth of the money supply, which in turn caused interest rates to skyrocket. Between June 1979 and March 1980 short-term interest rates rose by more than six percentage points, from 9.06 percent to 15.2 percent. In 1981 and 1982 combined, the S&L industry collectively reported almost $9 billion in losses. Worse, in mid-1982 all S&Ls combined had a negative net worth, valuing their mortgages on a market-value basis, of $100 billion, an amount equal to 15 percent of the industryâ€™s liabilities. In addition to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) debased capitol standards in the early 1980s in an extremely unwise attempt to hide the economic insolvency of many S&Ls. The FHLBB, the now-defunct regulator of S&Ls, authorized accounting gimmicks that violated generally accepted accounting principles. In one of the most flagrant gimmicks, firms that acquired S&Ls were allowed to count as goodwill the difference between the market value of assets acquired and the value of liabilities assumed. If a firm acquired an S&L with assets whose market value was five billion dollars and whose liabilities were six billion, for example, the one-billion-dollar difference was counted as goodwill, and the goodwill was then counted as capital. This â€œpush-downâ€* accountingâ€”losses were pushed down the balance sheet into the category of goodwillâ€”and other accounting gimmicks permitted S&Ls to operate with less and less real capital. Thus just as S&Ls, encouraged by deregulation, took on more risk, they had a smaller capital cushion to fall back on and, therefore, less to lose by making bad decisions. And that as they say was that, no bubble, just FED Cheers! H. Evers

â€œNot really. The S&L crisis was due to the long-running bankruptcy of the financial-monetary system, as previously described. In order to prop up the big bubble, the S&Lâ€™s were deregulated, at which point rampant fraud began to take place within these institutions.â€* Well this is just, oh how do I put this succinctly? WRONG! In order to prop up the big bubble? What big bubble the savings and loan crisis happened in the 1980s 20 years before any housing bubble so just what the heck are you talking about? That said a few of the reasons for the S&L collapse were: Federal deposit insurance, which was extended to S&Ls in 1934, was the root cause of the S&L crisis. In exchange for changing their lending practices from rather short term 7 to 15 Year mortgages to 30 year mortgages S&Ls gained Federal Insurance on deposits. Now remember this was the depression and the Government then as now thought it had the solution to all economic problems. Unfortunately deposit insurance was actuarially unsound from its inception, primarily because all S&Ls were charged the same insurance premium rate regardless of how safe or risky they were. However the deal was made the S&Ls got insurance and the Government got long term loans at low payment rates. Good goal bad economics. Why? Because S&L depended on short term passbook savings to fund their long term loans. Borrowing short to lend long was the financial structure that federal policy effectively forced S&Ls to follow in the aftermath of the great depression. S&Ls used short-term passbook savings to fund long-term, fixed-rate home mortgages. Although the long-term, fixed-rate mortgage may have been an admirable public-policy objective, the federal government picked the wrong horseâ€”the S&L industryâ€”to do this type of lending because S&Ls funded themselves primarily with short-term deposits. The dangers inherent in this â€œmaturity mismatchingâ€* became evident every time short-tern interest rates rose. S&Ls, stuck with long-term loans at fixed rates, often had to pay more to their depositors than they were making on their mortgages. In 1981 and 1982 the interest rate spreads for S&Ls (the difference between the average interest rate on their mortgage portfolios and their average cost of funds) were âˆ’1.0 percent and âˆ’0.7 percent, respectively. Disaster struck after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, decided in October 1979 to restrict the growth of the money supply, which in turn caused interest rates to skyrocket. Between June 1979 and March 1980 short-term interest rates rose by more than six percentage points, from 9.06 percent to 15.2 percent. In 1981 and 1982 combined, the S&L industry collectively reported almost $9 billion in losses. Worse, in mid-1982 all S&Ls combined had a negative net worth, valuing their mortgages on a market-value basis, of $100 billion, an amount equal to 15 percent of the industryâ€™s liabilities. In addition to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) debased capitol standards in the early 1980s in an extremely unwise attempt to hide the economic insolvency of many S&Ls. The FHLBB, the now-defunct regulator of S&Ls, authorized accounting gimmicks that violated generally accepted accounting principles. In one of the most flagrant gimmicks, firms that acquired S&Ls were allowed to count as goodwill the difference between the market value of assets acquired and the value of liabilities assumed. If a firm acquired an S&L with assets whose market value was five billion dollars and whose liabilities were six billion, for example, the one-billion-dollar difference was counted as goodwill, and the goodwill was then counted as capital. This â€œpush-downâ€* accountingâ€”losses were pushed down the balance sheet into the category of goodwillâ€”and other accounting gimmicks permitted S&Ls to operate with less and less real capital. Thus just as S&Ls, encouraged by deregulation, took on more risk, they had a smaller capital cushion to fall back on and, therefore, less to lose by making bad decisions. And that as they say was that, no bubble, just FED Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-28T12:44:18-07:00

26054

false

true

published

2009-08-28T12:44:18-07:00

2059

524457

OK Last post: You said ; 1. â€œThatâ€™s simply false. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as itâ€™s been since the 1920â€™sâ€* Now just what the heck is this supposed to mean? The assertion by sugar was that taxes had been â€œlowâ€* on the rich implying some harm to those less wealthy. â€œâ€¦your position has been employed for the last 30 years, right? Youâ€™d think that with that sort of track-record weâ€™d have something to show for it? If low taxes on the rich and faulty regulation and zero taxes on dividends and capitol gains were really good things for all of America, then why are we in such a chronically bad position?â€* I replied that taxes were not low on the wealthyâ€¦ so what the heck does anyone care about tax rates almost 90 years ago? Look it costs X amount to pay the bills for all the laws passed in America. The Government collects Y amount from all taxpayers. So letâ€™s look at what people earn by bracket their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) against what percent of that income they pay in taxes for the most recent year 2007. Top 1% earned 22.8% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 40.42% of all taxes Top 5% earned 30.34% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 60.63% of all taxes Top 10% earned 48.05% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 71.22% of all taxes Top 25% earned 68.71% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 96.51% of all taxes Top 50% earned 87.74% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 97.11% of all taxes Bottom 50% earned 12.26% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 2.89% of all taxes How can anyone imply that the wealthy, the people who provide the jobs create wealth in this county and pay 96% of all taxes do not carry more than their share? Cheers! H. Evers

OK Last post: You said ; 1. â€œThatâ€™s simply false. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as itâ€™s been since the 1920â€™sâ€* Now just what the heck is this supposed to mean? The assertion by sugar was that taxes had been â€œlowâ€* on the rich implying some harm to those less wealthy. â€œâ€¦your position has been employed for the last 30 years, right? Youâ€™d think that with that sort of track-record weâ€™d have something to show for it? If low taxes on the rich and faulty regulation and zero taxes on dividends and capitol gains were really good things for all of America, then why are we in such a chronically bad position?â€* I replied that taxes were not low on the wealthyâ€¦ so what the heck does anyone care about tax rates almost 90 years ago? Look it costs X amount to pay the bills for all the laws passed in America. The Government collects Y amount from all taxpayers. So letâ€™s look at what people earn by bracket their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) against what percent of that income they pay in taxes for the most recent year 2007. Top 1% earned 22.8% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 40.42% of all taxes Top 5% earned 30.34% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 60.63% of all taxes Top 10% earned 48.05% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 71.22% of all taxes Top 25% earned 68.71% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 96.51% of all taxes Top 50% earned 87.74% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 97.11% of all taxes Bottom 50% earned 12.26% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 2.89% of all taxes How can anyone imply that the wealthy, the people who provide the jobs create wealth in this county and pay 96% of all taxes do not carry more than their share? Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-28T13:15:43-07:00

26056

false

true

published

2009-08-28T13:15:43-07:00

2059

524457

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men â€” the poorest â€” would pay nothing; The fifth would pay $1: the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man â€” the richest â€” would pay $59. Thatâ€™s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement â€” until one day, the owner threw them a curve. â€œSince you are all such good customers,â€* he said, â€œIâ€™m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.â€* So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six â€” the paying customers? How could they divy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his â€œfair share?â€* The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybodyâ€™s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each manâ€™s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. â€œI only got a dollar out of the $20,â€* declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. â€œBut he got $7!â€* â€œYeah, thatâ€™s right,â€* exclaimed the fifth man. â€œI only saved a dollar, too. Itâ€™s unfair that he got seven times more than me!" â€œThatâ€™s true!â€* shouted the seventh man. â€œWhy should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" â€œWait a minute,â€* yelled the first four men in unison. â€œWe didnâ€™t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didnâ€™t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Unfortunately, some cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men â€” the poorest â€” would pay nothing; The fifth would pay $1: the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man â€” the richest â€” would pay $59. Thatâ€™s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement â€” until one day, the owner threw them a curve. â€œSince you are all such good customers,â€* he said, â€œIâ€™m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.â€* So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six â€” the paying customers? How could they divy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his â€œfair share?â€* The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybodyâ€™s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each manâ€™s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. â€œI only got a dollar out of the $20,â€* declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. â€œBut he got $7!â€* â€œYeah, thatâ€™s right,â€* exclaimed the fifth man. â€œI only saved a dollar, too. Itâ€™s unfair that he got seven times more than me!" â€œThatâ€™s true!â€* shouted the seventh man. â€œWhy should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" â€œWait a minute,â€* yelled the first four men in unison. â€œWe didnâ€™t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didnâ€™t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Unfortunately, some cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

2009-08-28T14:16:24-07:00

26063

false

published

2009-08-28T14:16:24-07:00

7095

524457

Unfortunately, some cannot grasp that a large modern economy and society doesn't work like Curly, Larry, and Moe going for burgers.

Unfortunately, some cannot grasp that a large modern economy and society doesn’t work like Curly, Larry, and Moe going for burgers.

2009-08-30T18:40:24-07:00

26094

true

false

published

2009-08-30T18:40:24-07:00

8735

524457

Unfortunately, some cannot grasp that a large modern economy and society doesnâ€™t work like Curly, Larry, and Moe going for burgers and that appears to include you Tyler. While your historical commentary â€œThe EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as itâ€™s been since the 1920â€™s.â€* is interesting but is was not germane to the discussion. Given the current tax rate and the current economic situation the Wealthy carry the tax burden of this Country. Just to make sure you saw it here is the latest report from the IRS: Top 1% earned 22.8% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 40.42% of all taxes Top 5% earned 30.34% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 60.63% of all taxes Top 10% earned 48.05% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 71.22% of all taxes Top 25% earned 68.71% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 96.51% of all taxes Top 50% earned 87.74% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 97.11% of all taxes Bottom 50% earned 12.26% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 2.89% of all taxes So are you saying that 50% of the country should pay no taxes? Maybe you could make that 60% and lump all of the burden on the top 40%. That way you could vote yourself a raise anytime you wanted. Of course you may have a little trouble convincing the wealthy to slit their own throats. You may find them abandoning you for some place that allows economic freedom. You may find this â€œChangedâ€* society wallowing in poverty without the producers of wealth; but, you know what they call that in Progressive circles? Bad Luck! Cheers! H. Evers

Unfortunately, some cannot grasp that a large modern economy and society doesnâ€™t work like Curly, Larry, and Moe going for burgers and that appears to include you Tyler. While your historical commentary â€œThe EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on the rich is as low as itâ€™s been since the 1920â€™s.â€* is interesting but is was not germane to the discussion. Given the current tax rate and the current economic situation the Wealthy carry the tax burden of this Country. Just to make sure you saw it here is the latest report from the IRS: Top 1% earned 22.8% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 40.42% of all taxes Top 5% earned 30.34% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 60.63% of all taxes Top 10% earned 48.05% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 71.22% of all taxes Top 25% earned 68.71% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 96.51% of all taxes Top 50% earned 87.74% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 97.11% of all taxes Bottom 50% earned 12.26% of the nationâ€™s AGI and paid 2.89% of all taxes So are you saying that 50% of the country should pay no taxes? Maybe you could make that 60% and lump all of the burden on the top 40%. That way you could vote yourself a raise anytime you wanted. Of course you may have a little trouble convincing the wealthy to slit their own throats. You may find them abandoning you for some place that allows economic freedom. You may find this â€œChangedâ€* society wallowing in poverty without the producers of wealth; but, you know what they call that in Progressive circles? Bad Luck! Cheers! H. Evers

2009-09-01T06:02:05-07:00

26115

false

true

published

2009-09-01T06:02:05-07:00

2059

524457

kudos -- You are close to correct in the open Earning's amounts. - But what does the word "Earning's" mean?! - Not my opinion, but the facts are that approx. - .3 of 1% - earn, profit(?), own, and/or control, or manipulate over 35% of Everything. It appears that these .3 of the top 1% are quite powerful, and want to stay that way. - And as for Taxes, - these 'Filthy $Rich' 1 out of 400 Americans, - mostly thru loop-holes & tax manipulations, pay very little - compared to the % of Income that the average American Citizen tries to Live on. - Some will disagree, but this is not my opinion, but simply the Truth (facts). - jward52

kudos — You are close to correct in the open Earning’s amounts. – But what does the word “Earning’s” mean?! – Not my opinion, but the facts are that approx. – .3 of 1% – earn, profit(?), own, and/or control, or manipulate over 35% of Everything. It appears that these .3 of the top 1% are quite powerful, and want to stay that way. – And as for Taxes, – these ‘Filthy $Rich’ 1 out of 400 Americans, – mostly thru loop-holes & tax manipulations, pay very little – compared to the % of Income that the average American Citizen tries to Live on. – Some will disagree, but this is not my opinion, but simply the Truth (facts). – jward52

2009-12-01T05:03:12-08:00

27249

true

false

published

2009-12-01T05:03:12-08:00

1334

524457

Interesting words fact, truth. People throw them around all the time. My information came from the IRS through the National Tax Foundation. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html I would be interested in seeing "the Truth (Facts)". Do they come without pejorative statements or are the insulting remarks required to â€œknow your truthâ€*? Cheers! H. Evers

Interesting words fact, truth. People throw them around all the time. My information came from the IRS through the National Tax Foundation. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html</a> I would be interested in seeing “the Truth (Facts)”. Do they come without pejorative statements or are the insulting remarks required to â€œknow your truthâ€*? Cheers! H. Evers

2009-12-02T11:12:28-08:00

27255

false

true

published

2009-12-02T11:12:28-08:00

2059

2009-12-01T04:47:36-08:00

564959

false

503

active

1334

564959

Under Clinton,- America was moving out of national DEBT. What-ever Bush / Congress did then and after,- changed this and so much more. Under Clinton, the U.S. would be DEBT Free by 2012. So then what happened under Bush? - Take a look, and add it up. The facts are evident. Bush supported and protected the very $wealthy top 3%, and the corporate-elitists, and the military/industrial dealers, - and the Wall-Street / top-BANK Derivative Scheme. If Clinton had a 3rd term,- then most likely the U.S. would Not be $13-Trillion in DEBT,- would Not be in Iraq,- and would Not be at a jobless rate of over 11+%. There seems to be a tiny link from Bush taking office,- to DEBT, WAR, ECONOMIC CRISIS, JOB-LOSS, DEVALUED-$DOLLAR, POVERTY+, and DEATH/DESTRUCTION!? - This "DEBT" THING MAY BE A REAL PROBLEM. Maybe We should eliminate/erase Debt all together. After all, none of this $Debt or $Interest is coming my way,- nor to anyone I personally know.(?) Most of this DEBT seems to being going UP-UP-&-AWAY! The Globalist Banksters support & promote (usury-funny-money)-DEBT, WAR, & POVERTY;- and Globalization of $Jobs/$Profits! - So why do WE-the-People go on allowing the Globalist Banksters to manage & manipulate Our $Money Supply here in Our Constitutional REPUBLIC?! - Just one observance:- no where in Our CONSTITUTION does it say 'we-the-banksters', or 'we-the-corporations', -- nor 'we-the-congress'!! -- jward52

Under Clinton,- America was moving out of national DEBT. What-ever Bush / Congress did then and after,- changed this and so much more. Under Clinton, the U.S. would be DEBT Free by 2012. So then what happened under Bush? – Take a look, and add it up. The facts are evident. Bush supported and protected the very $wealthy top 3%, and the corporate-elitists, and the military/industrial dealers, – and the Wall-Street / top-BANK Derivative Scheme. If Clinton had a 3rd term,- then most likely the U.S. would Not be $13-Trillion in DEBT,- would Not be in Iraq,- and would Not be at a jobless rate of over 11+%. There seems to be a tiny link from Bush taking office,- to DEBT, WAR, ECONOMIC CRISIS, JOB-LOSS, DEVALUED-$DOLLAR, POVERTY+, and DEATH/DESTRUCTION!? – This “DEBT” THING MAY BE A REAL PROBLEM. Maybe We should eliminate/erase Debt all together. After all, none of this $Debt or $Interest is coming my way,- nor to anyone I personally know.(?) Most of this DEBT seems to being going UP-UP-&-AWAY! The Globalist Banksters support & promote (usury-funny-money)-DEBT, WAR, & POVERTY;- and Globalization of $Jobs/$Profits! – So why do WE-the-People go on allowing the Globalist Banksters to manage & manipulate Our $Money Supply here in Our Constitutional REPUBLIC?! – Just one observance:- no where in Our CONSTITUTION does it say ‘we-the-banksters’, or ‘we-the-corporations’, <del>- nor ‘we-the-congress’!! -</del> jward52

2009-12-01T04:47:36-08:00

27248

true

false

published

2009-12-01T04:47:36-08:00

1334

2009-10-27T13:00:52-07:00

2009-10-27T13:00:51-07:00

555660

false

503

active

2059

555660

Tax refugees staging escape from New York Â© NY Post 27 Oct 2009 New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out. "The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said. What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes. Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK Yep you overtax tax those wealthy people and guess whatâ€¦They move! Now guess what happens to the middle class and poor in NYCâ€¦Their taxes go up and services go down. Yo, all you progressive Democrats out there what do you think will happen when the taxes for the new health care and Cap with tax and the surcharge tax, and the wind fall profit tax all kick in. My oh My just wait and see what unemployment looks like then. Maybe just maybe this socialism/fascism/progressivism Change thing wasnâ€™t such a good idea??? Cheers! H. Evers

Tax refugees staging escape from New York Â© NY Post 27 Oct 2009 New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out. “The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said. What’s worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes. Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK</a> Yep you overtax tax those wealthy people and guess whatâ€¦They move! Now guess what happens to the middle class and poor in NYCâ€¦Their taxes go up and services go down. Yo, all you progressive Democrats out there what do you think will happen when the taxes for the new health care and Cap with tax and the surcharge tax, and the wind fall profit tax all kick in. My oh My just wait and see what unemployment looks like then. Maybe just maybe this socialism/fascism/progressivism Change thing wasnâ€™t such a good idea??? Cheers! H. Evers

2009-10-27T13:00:52-07:00

26747

false

true

published

2009-10-27T13:00:52-07:00

2059

2009-10-17T09:54:20-07:00

2009-10-15T11:26:09-07:00

553502

false

503

active

9853

553502

explain why so many of the sports figures with huge amonut of income become us citizens? the reason is they pay less taxes than anyplace else on earth. sad fact is we have to pay taxes, now granted we have huge amounts of waste, but the rich need to pay their share.

explain why so many of the sports figures with huge amonut of income become us citizens? the reason is they pay less taxes than anyplace else on earth. sad fact is we have to pay taxes, now granted we have huge amounts of waste, but the rich need to pay their share.

2009-10-15T11:26:09-07:00

26625

true

false

published

2009-10-15T11:26:09-07:00

9853

553502

You are completely mistaken. I highly recommend that you do a little OBJECTIVE research. If you would like some references I can provide you with a reading list. Cheers! H. Evers

You are completely mistaken. I highly recommend that you do a little OBJECTIVE research. If you would like some references I can provide you with a reading list. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-10-16T05:31:52-07:00

26629

false

true

published

2009-10-16T05:31:52-07:00

2059

553502

please do, but just percentage rates does not mean anything, in fact I worked with a friend for years, he had 38 rental properties the last time i asked (most all paid off), he grossed about $100,000 a year from his day job alone, and most years paid no federal taxes, never over $1,000 in federal taxes for the 20 years i worked with him. Then for years he would move into one for the 2 years, and sell it as his residence, and guess what, pay no taxes after it had been depreciated for years. All perfectly legal I suppose. I am sure you could find lots of other ways to skirt taxes. The tax system is not equatible in my opinion. I have no problem someone investing, but everyone else should not have to pay their taxes for them!!

please do, but just percentage rates does not mean anything, in fact I worked with a friend for years, he had 38 rental properties the last time i asked (most all paid off), he grossed about $100,000 a year from his day job alone, and most years paid no federal taxes, never over $1,000 in federal taxes for the 20 years i worked with him. Then for years he would move into one for the 2 years, and sell it as his residence, and guess what, pay no taxes after it had been depreciated for years. All perfectly legal I suppose. I am sure you could find lots of other ways to skirt taxes. The tax system is not equatible in my opinion. I have no problem someone investing, but everyone else should not have to pay their taxes for them!!

2009-10-16T06:22:55-07:00

26636

true

false

published

2009-10-16T06:22:55-07:00

9853

553502

Seems to me, instead of learning how to excel in life from the good example(s) of entrepreneurialism before you, you only learned how to envy the wealth of successful men. Donâ€™t be offended, thatâ€™s just my opinion based on all Iâ€™ve heard from somebody Iâ€™ve never met before today; sorry. As you mentioned all those things your employer did are perfectly legal; they are also learnable. The part you overlooked is the job creation aspect. Your employer does pay taxes. Every thing he purchased and every employee or contractor he hired to perform his business was taxed and their taxes were passed on to him in the form of the cost of their services. And in turn he passes his tax burden on down to his customers just like you do to him when you ask for a raise because the cost of living goes up because of taxation or inflation. See how that s**t works? Income tax is a vicious cycle, all of it under a cloak of embedment. Your employer pays half of your social security tax burden limiting how much he is able to compensate you for your hard work. Business ownership/management can be a stressful affair. By taking away the incentives of financial gain/savings through the current tax code; many would not even bother, resulting in less employment resulting in less tax revenue collected. This just puts more folks on the government dole/ under government control. In reality the only people who pay any taxes are the end users of goods or services. Instead of taking an approach of restricting the capability of the employers of this nation to do more business, if not dissuading them altogether; why not make it possible for them to expand their business capabilities enabling them to create more jobs? By the way, the Fair Tax plan (HR25) is the best solution for our economy. Please look into it. Go to FairTax.org.

Seems to me, instead of learning how to excel in life from the good example(s) of entrepreneurialism before you, you only learned how to envy the wealth of successful men. Donâ€™t be offended, thatâ€™s just my opinion based on all Iâ€™ve heard from somebody Iâ€™ve never met before today; sorry. As you mentioned all those things your employer did are perfectly legal; they are also learnable. The part you overlooked is the job creation aspect. Your employer does pay taxes. Every thing he purchased and every employee or contractor he hired to perform his business was taxed and their taxes were passed on to him in the form of the cost of their services. And in turn he passes his tax burden on down to his customers just like you do to him when you ask for a raise because the cost of living goes up because of taxation or inflation. See how that s**t works? Income tax is a vicious cycle, all of it under a cloak of embedment. Your employer pays half of your social security tax burden limiting how much he is able to compensate you for your hard work. Business ownership/management can be a stressful affair. By taking away the incentives of financial gain/savings through the current tax code; many would not even bother, resulting in less employment resulting in less tax revenue collected. This just puts more folks on the government dole/ under government control. In reality the only people who pay any taxes are the end users of goods or services. Instead of taking an approach of restricting the capability of the employers of this nation to do more business, if not dissuading them altogether; why not make it possible for them to expand their business capabilities enabling them to create more jobs? By the way, the Fair Tax plan (HR25) is the best solution for our economy. Please look into it. Go to FairTax.org.

2009-10-16T07:43:11-07:00

26639

false

true

published

2009-10-16T07:43:11-07:00

7095

553502

this wasn't my employer, this was an equal at work, he invested in real estate. I have investments myself, have done quite well. He has no more created jobs than I have. Seems to me your just another (sad to say i have come to know lots of people with lots of money) of the selfish. Passes his "tax burden down"? Yep, it seems that is what the people with money all want to do, pass the burden down. another way of saying let everyone else pay your way. I think it is great people make money, but with all the rental property are cost for fire, police and so on, and if he collected all the money from the renter, and paid no taxes, explain how he can "pass the tax burden"? Sorry to say but you sound like a typical republican, selfish. They wave the flag and destroy this country for all but a few. By the way, just because the tax laws he used are legal does not make them fair. See how it works?

this wasn’t my employer, this was an equal at work, he invested in real estate. I have investments myself, have done quite well. He has no more created jobs than I have. Seems to me your just another (sad to say i have come to know lots of people with lots of money) of the selfish. Passes his “tax burden down”? Yep, it seems that is what the people with money all want to do, pass the burden down. another way of saying let everyone else pay your way. I think it is great people make money, but with all the rental property are cost for fire, police and so on, and if he collected all the money from the renter, and paid no taxes, explain how he can “pass the tax burden”? Sorry to say but you sound like a typical republican, selfish. They wave the flag and destroy this country for all but a few. By the way, just because the tax laws he used are legal does not make them fair. See how it works?

2009-10-16T08:01:54-07:00

26644

true

false

published

2009-10-16T08:01:54-07:00

9853

553502

The law is the law. You will never be able to change the heart of men. If you remove the incentive to make money, the hearts of those who know how will seek greener pastures on other shores. Let me ask you this; how many ways do you seek to save your earnings from taxation? Do you just say "what ever the IRS says I should do to pay more that I do"? "After all I've done well and I should pay my fair share"; probably not, you are doing every thing you know in order to reduce the amount of taxes you pay. I weld say you have done well but because of the suffering you see around you, you feel guilty about your success. So in order to satisfy your conscience, barring donating your own fruits to IRS as a charitable contribution (some how thinking government has the solution), you are going after the guy who is maybe just a little more successful than yourself. Like I said earlier: Donâ€™t be offended, thatâ€™s just my opinion based on all Iâ€™ve heard from somebody Iâ€™ve never met before today; sorry.

The law is the law. You will never be able to change the heart of men. If you remove the incentive to make money, the hearts of those who know how will seek greener pastures on other shores. Let me ask you this; how many ways do you seek to save your earnings from taxation? Do you just say “what ever the IRS says I should do to pay more that I do”? “After all I’ve done well and I should pay my fair share”; probably not, you are doing every thing you know in order to reduce the amount of taxes you pay. I weld say you have done well but because of the suffering you see around you, you feel guilty about your success. So in order to satisfy your conscience, barring donating your own fruits to IRS as a charitable contribution (some how thinking government has the solution), you are going after the guy who is maybe just a little more successful than yourself. Like I said earlier: Donâ€™t be offended, thatâ€™s just my opinion based on all Iâ€™ve heard from somebody Iâ€™ve never met before today; sorry.

2009-10-16T08:46:08-07:00

26645

false

true

published

2009-10-16T08:46:08-07:00

7095

553502

Mike, I note that you are supporting both a flat tax and the â€œFair Taxâ€*. I agree that either would be an improvement however why should you wish to provide more income (by supporting the increase of taxes on the wealthy) for the a government that plans on spending 15 Trillion dollars more that it will take in over the next ten years? I know you said no percentages however let me just show you interesting stats: The IRS notes that the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern US history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. These high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. Hmmm, something may just be out of balance here. By the way to be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Most, of the 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. That means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the load for us all. Now some promote the idea that all of the vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. BUT, where do we stop? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? One more point from the IRS as if this was not enough. The IRS presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes. Now for some dollar figures: This table shows how much was paid in 2007 by each economic level AFTER adjusted for the earned income tax credit Total Income Tax after Credits, 2007 ($ Billions) Total Top-Top -Top-Between-Top-Between-Top-Bottom Paid 1% 5% 10% 11& 25% 26& 50% 50% TAX 25% 50% ____________________________________________ 1,116 - 451 -676 -794 -171 - 966 - 117 - 1,083 - 32 Please note the top 1% are paying 40% of all taxes while earning 22% of the national annual gross income. The bottoms 50% are paying 2.89% of all tax while earning 12.26% of national annual gross income. The other years can be seen at this website. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html For every dollar you take away from the wealthy you reduce their ability to invest and create jobs. We would be much better off if instead of passing the 3 trillion dollar stimulus plan (counting both the Federal government and the Fed bank) if the government had simply stopped collecting taxes on everyone for 18 months. Increasing the taxes on the wealthy is a sure fire method to put the country in the poor house and give government total control of our economic life because of the disaster created byâ€¦. Government. Cheers! H. Evers

Mike, I note that you are supporting both a flat tax and the â€œFair Taxâ€*. I agree that either would be an improvement however why should you wish to provide more income (by supporting the increase of taxes on the wealthy) for the a government that plans on spending 15 Trillion dollars more that it will take in over the next ten years? I know you said no percentages however let me just show you interesting stats: The IRS notes that the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern US history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. These high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. Hmmm, something may just be out of balance here. By the way to be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Most, of the 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. That means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the load for us all. Now some promote the idea that all of the vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. BUT, where do we stop? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? One more point from the IRS as if this was not enough. The IRS presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes. Now for some dollar figures: This table shows how much was paid in 2007 by each economic level AFTER adjusted for the earned income tax credit Total Income Tax after Credits, 2007 ($ Billions) Total Top-Top -Top-Between-Top-Between-Top-Bottom Paid 1% 5% 10% 11& 25% 26& 50% 50% TAX 25% 50% ____________________________________________ 1,116 – 451 -676 -794 -171 – 966 – 117 – 1,083 – 32 Please note the top 1% are paying 40% of all taxes while earning 22% of the national annual gross income. The bottoms 50% are paying 2.89% of all tax while earning 12.26% of national annual gross income. The other years can be seen at this website. <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html</a> For every dollar you take away from the wealthy you reduce their ability to invest and create jobs. We would be much better off if instead of passing the 3 trillion dollar stimulus plan (counting both the Federal government and the Fed bank) if the government had simply stopped collecting taxes on everyone for 18 months. Increasing the taxes on the wealthy is a sure fire method to put the country in the poor house and give government total control of our economic life because of the disaster created byâ€¦. Government. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-10-16T08:57:52-07:00

26647

false

true

published

2009-10-16T08:57:52-07:00

2059

553502

Sorry the table would not cooperate. See the website

Sorry the table would not cooperate. See the website

2009-10-16T08:58:36-07:00

26648

false

true

published

2009-10-16T08:58:36-07:00

2059

553502

i certainly don't feel one bit of guilt, nor should anyone about working hard and doing well, the question is about recinding the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which i beleive ought to be done. As well as changing the tax code to make it more profitable to produce it in the usa, so all americans can have a good/better standard of living. I think this is more about fairness, not guilt. What we have is not fair to the middle class working people. I see the last 25 years or so as an assualt on the middle class. And I see the so called "Free Traders" the problem we face now. google lou dobbs on trade, he makes a better arguement than i can. .

i certainly don’t feel one bit of guilt, nor should anyone about working hard and doing well, the question is about recinding the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which i beleive ought to be done. As well as changing the tax code to make it more profitable to produce it in the usa, so all americans can have a good/better standard of living. I think this is more about fairness, not guilt. What we have is not fair to the middle class working people. I see the last 25 years or so as an assualt on the middle class. And I see the so called “Free Traders” the problem we face now. google lou dobbs on trade, he makes a better arguement than i can. .

2009-10-16T11:47:18-07:00

26660

true

false

published

2009-10-16T11:47:18-07:00

9853

553502

Just one more statistic. The federal government based on how much stimulus money they have spent (elusive to actually track) based on how many jobs they claim to have saved (impossible to legitamately verify) comes to around $11,268,822. per job. How can anybody want these guys to have even MORE money and still claim sanity?

Just one more statistic. The federal government based on how much stimulus money they have spent (elusive to actually track) based on how many jobs they claim to have saved (impossible to legitamately verify) comes to around $11,268,822. per job. How can anybody want these guys to have even MORE money and still claim sanity?

2009-10-16T15:57:37-07:00

26661

false

true

published

2009-10-16T15:57:37-07:00

7095

553502

2009-10-16T19:14:20-07:00

26664

false

true

published

2009-10-16T19:14:20-07:00

7095

553502

i really think this 2 party system is a joke, what all you point out about what is happening now is true and disgusting, but what was our choice? a party that gives all our jobs away? 4 more years of the republicans and it would have broken the countries back. like the saying goes, just pick the least of the 2 evils.......

i really think this 2 party system is a joke, what all you point out about what is happening now is true and disgusting, but what was our choice? a party that gives all our jobs away? 4 more years of the republicans and it would have broken the countries back. like the saying goes, just pick the least of the 2 evils…….

2009-10-16T23:21:10-07:00

26673

true

false

published

2009-10-16T23:21:10-07:00

9853

553502

What men do and have done to our country is inevitable (Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil- Ecclesiastes Chapter 8) , even the founders knew eventually we would deteriorate into a tyranny; read Jefferson. Surely it would be a surprise to some of them that we have lasted as long as it has. Before critical mass is reached resulting in a complete fascist take over or all out civil war, a complete undoing of what the hands of men have done to our republic must be done. A complete reboot of our constitution (al) form of government is required. Of coarse this will likely not happen considering the heart of men when given such power. It doesn't have to be like a complete erasing of our rich American history, thatâ€™s what many have been successful at doing already. It can be Amendment #28 that annuls 200 years of constitutional tampering and federal case law. Most of the major social amendments like the 13th are already an established part of our culture so there will be no threat to anybodyâ€™s civil liberties. Will there be difficulties, of coarse there will be. I expect that many of the old amendments could be re-established if it was found to be absolutely necessary. Just look at what is happening to the dollar; itâ€™s all but gone. Our leaders know what to do but they keep avoiding doing it, they keep trying to push back the inevitable in an attempt to save face and line their own pockets; the heart of man thing again. Just start over. We have all came to a point in life where we just needed to take a step back and reassess our direction. This is what we need to do on a national level or we can just kiss it all goodbye baby.

What men do and have done to our country is inevitable (Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil- Ecclesiastes Chapter 8) , even the founders knew eventually we would deteriorate into a tyranny; read Jefferson. Surely it would be a surprise to some of them that we have lasted as long as it has. Before critical mass is reached resulting in a complete fascist take over or all out civil war, a complete undoing of what the hands of men have done to our republic must be done. A complete reboot of our constitution (al) form of government is required. Of coarse this will likely not happen considering the heart of men when given such power. It doesn’t have to be like a complete erasing of our rich American history, thatâ€™s what many have been successful at doing already. It can be Amendment #28 that annuls 200 years of constitutional tampering and federal case law. Most of the major social amendments like the 13th are already an established part of our culture so there will be no threat to anybodyâ€™s civil liberties. Will there be difficulties, of coarse there will be. I expect that many of the old amendments could be re-established if it was found to be absolutely necessary. Just look at what is happening to the dollar; itâ€™s all but gone. Our leaders know what to do but they keep avoiding doing it, they keep trying to push back the inevitable in an attempt to save face and line their own pockets; the heart of man thing again. Just start over. We have all came to a point in life where we just needed to take a step back and reassess our direction. This is what we need to do on a national level or we can just kiss it all goodbye baby.

2009-10-17T08:20:53-07:00

26674

false

true

published

2009-10-17T08:20:53-07:00

7095

553502

Look Mike you have several things confused. Let talk about just who will be taxed under when the tax cuts are repealed. If you look at the stats on the web site posted you will see that the top 1% pay better than 40% of all taxes. You may have missed the other fact that goes along with this. Let me highlight it here. â€œTo be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Please note that the majority os the so called super wealthy 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income.â€* Business income produced by their small companies. NOTE: Small business in this country employs the MAJORITY of people who work and pay taxes in this country. So what you are really doing when you raise the tax is destroying small business, increasing unemployment (now at over 10% Nationally), and extending the EMERGENCY so that Mr. Rom Emanuel and President can continue to increase the power and control of our lives exercised by the central government. This is the government that caused the problem in the first place. You want fairness? Ok then; why is it Fair for bottom 48% of the country to pay no taxes at all? Cheers H. Evers

Look Mike you have several things confused. Let talk about just who will be taxed under when the tax cuts are repealed. If you look at the stats on the web site posted you will see that the top 1% pay better than 40% of all taxes. You may have missed the other fact that goes along with this. Let me highlight it here. â€œTo be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Please note that the majority os the so called super wealthy 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income.â€* Business income produced by their small companies. NOTE: Small business in this country employs the MAJORITY of people who work and pay taxes in this country. So what you are really doing when you raise the tax is destroying small business, increasing unemployment (now at over 10% Nationally), and extending the EMERGENCY so that Mr. Rom Emanuel and President can continue to increase the power and control of our lives exercised by the central government. This is the government that caused the problem in the first place. You want fairness? Ok then; why is it Fair for bottom 48% of the country to pay no taxes at all? Cheers H. Evers

2009-10-17T09:54:20-07:00

26675

false

true

published

2009-10-17T09:54:20-07:00

2059

2009-09-30T07:00:41-07:00

550041

false

503

active

2059

550041

California is going in the tank with debt just like this country under the Obama administrationâ€™s plan to tax the wealthy out of existence. California is way ahead of President Obama having successfully driven away many of the achievers who create wealth. Taxing the tar out of the productive in society will do that. But it seems as though things have gotten so desperate, that someone in California has actually admitted that their tax system is driving away the wealthy and therefore decreasing tax revenues. "Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - A state commission is expected to submit a report Tuesday to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers that recommends bold changes to California's tax system. But it's being met by political skepticism before the ink dries. The Commission on the 21st Century Economy is expected to recommend repealing the sales and corporate taxes, flattening the income tax rate and taxing businesses in a way that has never been tried on a wide scale in the United States. A draft copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press showed the commission will recommend that the cash-strapped state change its personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy. It also recommends replacing the state sales and corporate taxes with a new business levy that taxes net receipts, in an attempt to tax the value of all goods and services businesses produce in the state. "Improvements to the tax system, if made, can be an important factor in how quickly and strongly the state rebounds and grows," the report states." Now do not hold your breath that California has finally discovered reality. Like many who post here Californians believe that you can get something for nothing and that the workers not the entrepreneur that produces the wealth necessary to support government. It is interesting; however, to see that in spite of the disaster confronting them â€œprogressiveâ€* politicians stick to their core value of government first. Cheers! H. Evers

California is going in the tank with debt just like this country under the Obama administrationâ€™s plan to tax the wealthy out of existence. California is way ahead of President Obama having successfully driven away many of the achievers who create wealth. Taxing the tar out of the productive in society will do that. But it seems as though things have gotten so desperate, that someone in California has actually admitted that their tax system is driving away the wealthy and therefore decreasing tax revenues. “Sacramento, Calif. (AP) – A state commission is expected to submit a report Tuesday to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers that recommends bold changes to California’s tax system. But it’s being met by political skepticism before the ink dries. The Commission on the 21st Century Economy is expected to recommend repealing the sales and corporate taxes, flattening the income tax rate and taxing businesses in a way that has never been tried on a wide scale in the United States. A draft copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press showed the commission will recommend that the cash-strapped state change its personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy. It also recommends replacing the state sales and corporate taxes with a new business levy that taxes net receipts, in an attempt to tax the value of all goods and services businesses produce in the state. “Improvements to the tax system, if made, can be an important factor in how quickly and strongly the state rebounds and grows,” the report states." Now do not hold your breath that California has finally discovered reality. Like many who post here Californians believe that you can get something for nothing and that the workers not the entrepreneur that produces the wealth necessary to support government. It is interesting; however, to see that in spite of the disaster confronting them â€œprogressiveâ€* politicians stick to their core value of government first. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-09-30T07:00:41-07:00

26543

false

true

published

2009-09-30T07:00:41-07:00

2059

2009-09-25T06:53:03-07:00

2009-09-25T06:53:02-07:00

548141

false

503

active

2059

548141

A Study by the Congressional Research Service reveals Obama will spend more on welfare of all types in the next year than Bush spent on the entire Iraq War, The Congressional Research Service tells us that the total cost of the Iraq war under President Bush was $622 billion. Do you have any clue how much Obama is going to spend on welfare, treating America's parasite infestation, in just 2010 alone? Care to guess? Well ... let's try $888 billion. Yup, you got it. That's about $260 billion more than the cost of the entire Iraq war under Bush. And what will we get for that money? An entrenched welfare class, that's what. Our parasite problem will become even worse. Frankly, we got a lot more bang for the buck out of the war in Iraq. Remember the next time you vote; elections have consequences! http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=54400 Cheers! H. Evers

A Study by the Congressional Research Service reveals Obama will spend more on welfare of all types in the next year than Bush spent on the entire Iraq War, The Congressional Research Service tells us that the total cost of the Iraq war under President Bush was $622 billion. Do you have any clue how much Obama is going to spend on welfare, treating America’s parasite infestation, in just 2010 alone? Care to guess? Well … let’s try $888 billion. Yup, you got it. That’s about $260 billion more than the cost of the entire Iraq war under Bush. And what will we get for that money? An entrenched welfare class, that’s what. Our parasite problem will become even worse. Frankly, we got a lot more bang for the buck out of the war in Iraq. Remember the next time you vote; elections have consequences! <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=54400" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=54400</a> Cheers! H. Evers

2009-09-25T06:53:03-07:00

26474

false

true

published

2009-09-25T06:53:03-07:00

2059

2009-08-31T08:06:18-07:00

2009-08-04T08:54:39-07:00

528470

false

503

active

2059

528470

A little reality check on who pays the bills for all the largess of the Federal Government. The IRS notes that the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. These high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. Hmmm, something may just be out of balance here. By the way to be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Most, of the 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. That means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the load for us all. Now the demagogues on this site and other places will continue to promote the idea that all of the vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they stop? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? One more point from the IRS as if this was not enough. The IRS presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes. So now you have reality distort it as you will. Preach hate against the over achievers who earn more than you. Demand that THY pay â€œtheir shareâ€*. However, just understand that in reality it is you who are not paying your fair share. Cheers! H. Evers

A little reality check on who pays the bills for all the largess of the Federal Government. The IRS notes that the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. These high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. Hmmm, something may just be out of balance here. By the way to be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Most, of the 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. That means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the load for us all. Now the demagogues on this site and other places will continue to promote the idea that all of the vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they stop? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? One more point from the IRS as if this was not enough. The IRS presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes. So now you have reality distort it as you will. Preach hate against the over achievers who earn more than you. Demand that THY pay â€œtheir shareâ€*. However, just understand that in reality it is you who are not paying your fair share. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-04T08:54:39-07:00

25633

false

true

published

2009-08-04T08:54:39-07:00

2059

528470

That's because of the crowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottom. The rich pay such a relatively large percentage of aggregate tax revenue because the incomes of those nearer the bottom of the ladder have been destroyed by the free trade swindle, our collapsing infrastructure and industrial base, fascist anti-unionism, and various other neo-liberal policies intended to crush wages and heap yet more benefits on the most fortunate among us.

That’s because of the crowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottom. The rich pay such a relatively large percentage of aggregate tax revenue because the incomes of those nearer the bottom of the ladder have been destroyed by the free trade swindle, our collapsing infrastructure and industrial base, fascist anti-unionism, and various other neo-liberal policies intended to crush wages and heap yet more benefits on the most fortunate among us.

2009-08-26T15:14:12-07:00

25995

true

false

published

2009-08-26T15:14:12-07:00

8735

528470

Letâ€™s think about this for a minute. Your statement:â€œcrowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottomâ€* is economically incorrect it assumes that capitol is static when the opposite is the truth. When capital is generated the total pool of available capital increases and there for that is more for everyone. Now I grant you that this is only true in a Capitalist economy operating a free market. In a socialist economy the capital is static mandated by the government. This actually causes the economy to shrink until all are economically equal and equally poor. Euro-Socialist try to only bleed the Capitalist engine enough to maintain their nanny state vote buying. This causes their economies to stagnate to the degree the collectivist tendencies of socialism are enforced. I recommend you read â€œCowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Realityâ€* By Olaf Gersemann Cheers! H. Evers

Letâ€™s think about this for a minute. Your statement:â€œcrowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottomâ€* is economically incorrect it assumes that capitol is static when the opposite is the truth. When capital is generated the total pool of available capital increases and there for that is more for everyone. Now I grant you that this is only true in a Capitalist economy operating a free market. In a socialist economy the capital is static mandated by the government. This actually causes the economy to shrink until all are economically equal and equally poor. Euro-Socialist try to only bleed the Capitalist engine enough to maintain their nanny state vote buying. This causes their economies to stagnate to the degree the collectivist tendencies of socialism are enforced. I recommend you read â€œCowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Realityâ€* By Olaf Gersemann Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-28T11:00:51-07:00

26047

false

true

published

2009-08-28T11:00:51-07:00

2059

528470

"Your statement: 'crowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottom' is economically incorrect it assumes that capitol is static when the opposite is the truth." It assumes nothing of the sort. Economic growth comes from, and in the long run can only come from, increases in the productive powers of labor. This can be done through a number of means: qualitative and/or quantitative increases in the stock of physically productive capital; scientific progress, and the discovery and technical implementation of new physical principles; the development of more and better public infrastructure, which translates into the production of physical savings and the lowering of economic overhead throughout the economy; an increase in the skill level of the workforce; and so on. But I never said or implied that the capital stock is static - although, if you believe the oft-parroted myth that "government can't create wealth," you are tacitly making such a claim. What I will say, which is backed up by objective fact, is that inequality in the distribution of wealth and the supply of capital goods and other means of production have little to do with each other, and may in fact have an inverse relationship. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has the world's highest degree of economic inequality, and is among the world's least capitalized economies. France is the world's most capital-intensive economy, and they have a very low degree of economic inequality as well as a very progressive tax structure. Back home here, the total supply of productive capital in the US economy has been decreasing steadily for decades, while economic inequality has been increasing. So, the whole notion that a greater degree of economic inequality means a greater capital stock is totally false. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. It seems that the problem here is that you conflate the hoarding of paper assets by a small elite with the formation and accumulation of productive capital. Or, put another way, that the more wealth the rich acquire, the more actually productive capital there is in the economy. This is clearly not the case - there is no guarantee that the increase in the volume of savings possessed by the rich is not merely the result of a transfer from the working and middle classes. But hey, economic inequality in the US today is at levels unseen since feudal times, so that must mean the economy is booming, right? Err... not so much. "When capital is generated the total pool of available capital increases and there for that is more for everyone." That is by no means assured. First of all, let's be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital. The notion that "what's good for Wall Street is good for main street" has been utterly obliterated by the experience of the last decade or so. Now, even assuming you mean productive capital, perhaps the rich merely consume the increased productive surplus themselves? Or maybe new capital goods are created/purchased by a firm not with the intention of increasing production? For example, in the 1990's, the Gillette corporation built new factories in Europe, but not to substantially increase their manufacturing output. Instead, they let it sit mostly idle, so as to apply downward pressure on wages at their US plants - in case the US workers decided that they deserved a share of the firm's rising profits since they produced them, management could merely shift production to their European facilities, so as to keep their domestic markets supplied. In other words, the sole purpose of this investment was not to increase sales/production, only to use the slack production capacity as a bludgeon with which to beat their labor force. Many, many similar examples exist. The point is that unless there's some mechanism to ensure that workers share in the increased economic surplus they've produced, firms often find that it's more profitable (in the short term of course; in the long run, it's untenable) to drive down wages (which merely creates more accounting profits), rather than increase aggregate production (from which most benefit). In short, your claim is only true if industry is already operating at full capacity; however, since WWII, US industry has only operated at an average of about 70% of capacity. Right now, it's even lower - barely over 50%. "Now I grant you that this is only true in a Capitalist economy operating a free market." Ah yes, the "free market." If only one existed, we'd have the capitalist utopia you imagine. Of course, in the real world, you find that collusion (e.g., price and wage fixing, and other forms of anti-competitive practice) amongst large enterprises is the norm, and "free market" competition is a very rare exception - if it exists at all. In practice (and I am well aware that Friedmanites and Hayekians have a very difficult time distinguishing between fantasy and reality), instead of "free market competition," you find cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, monopsonies, oligopsonies, and on and on. "In a socialist economy the capital is static mandated by the government." What on earth are you talking about?? To my knowledge, there is not a single "socialist" economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy. The Soviet Union was THE "truly socialist" economy. In 1917, there was virtually no industry in the country. By 1941, they were turning out tanks, planes, rifles, and all sorts of munitions in the millions. Now, sorry if I seem harsh, but you can't make absolutely false, totally absurd statements like that and expect to be taken seriously. As to how socialist economies actually work, we must first realize that "socialism" is an extremely nebulous term; these days, all it really means is that production should be organized to benefit the whole society, not just a small elite. As a practical matter, we can conceptually divide socialist economies into two different types: on the one hand, you have those of the command-and-control sort, such as that which existed in the USSR, where the state owns almost all capital, and makes all or nearly all decisions concerning production. On the other hand, you have those approximating the Dirigisme model used (very successfully, I might add) in post-WWII France, and emulated in many other countries. Under the Dirigisme model, the state has a strong directive role in production and usually owns some of the strategically important large industries; however, small and medium-sized enterprises operate as in a capitalist system. It's actually debatable as to whether or not this model is truly "socialist," as the highest form of capital organization remains the equities markets, but that's just arguing semantics. Likewise, there is never a hard-and-fast distinction in practice - the Social Market Economy of Germany is mostly privatized, but heavily regulated and unionized, and the labor unions hold seats on the boards of most major companies; the Soviets, on the other hand, set the standard for a centrally planned economy, but even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Union's history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms. So, under the Soviet model, basic production guidelines were put forward by the Politburo in a series of 5-year plans; these included outlines of major investment projects, preliminary targets for the production of basic commodities, and general economic strategy. After approval and revision by the Communist Party's Central Committee, the plan was sent to government ministries for further review, revision and elaboration. Next, the economic plan went to Gosplan, the Soviet planning agency. Gosplan would gather data on enterprise inventories, and ensure input commodities were provided for the planned outputs for each sector of the economy. The plan was then broken down further for individual regions, economic ministries, enterprises, and so forth. During this process, there were various reviews and bargaining procedures. The individual enterprises - which weren't all that different from capitalist companies - of course were responsible for doing the actual production. However, totally contrary to your assertion, the Soviet Economy was always oriented around (and nearly always achieved, until the late 70's) high growth through the development of heavy industry and large infrastructure projects. This approach was quite successful for a long time: by the 1970's, the Soviet economy was the 2nd largest in the world; destitution, starvation, and unemployment (all rampant pre-1917) had become virtually non-existent; industrial and infrastructure development were closing in on Western standards; and living standards had risen many-fold since the revolution. However, due primarily to inept and short-sighted leadership, the USSR ran into three major problems beginning in the 1970's: first, while the defense and related sectors remained top-notch until the end, for a variety of reasons, it became increasingly difficult (in no small part due to official state ideology) to transfer scientific and productive improvements from the defense sector to the civilian economy; this led to continued growth in the defense sector, but much slower growth in civilian production. Second, due to the high oil prices during this time, the USSR was flush with foreign exchange earnings. This induced the intelligentsia to stop making adequate investments in infrastructure and industrial production, instead relying on forex subsidies to enterprises to encourage growth. When oil tanked in the 1980's, these subsidies became unsustainable, their balance of payments deficit exploded, so to maintain output, the leadership was forced to go deeply into debt. Third, the debacle in Afghanistan wreaked havoc on the already stagnating economy, necessitated even more foreign borrowing, and began a process of physical breakdown of the economy. Gorbachev of came to power in the 1980's, but rather than rebuild the physical economy, he engaged in draconian austerity policies (which only aggravated the ongoing physical breakdown) and dismantled parts of the planning apparatus, which did not result in an increased role of market forces, but merely led to chaos, rampant shortages of goods, and shortly thereafter, the collapse of the USSR. -- As for the "Euro-Socialists," as you call them, you don't know what you're talking about here either. The general philosophy of European economic policy is that the state provides some direction for private production, as well provision of an array of high-quality social services, while the private sector does most of the heavy lifting. Basically, they're just not as dogmatic about economic policy over there; if the state can do something best, then the policy is for the state to do it, if the private sector can do it better, then it tends to be a private-sector activity. To go back to France again, which provides a typical example (and because I've lived there) the state owns majority stakes in the railroad system (SNCF), the power grid (EDF), gas infrastructure (GDF), the national airline (Air France), the state nuclear plant manufacturer (Areva), and the mail service (La Poste). However, these are not structured as government agencies, but rather as sociÃ©tÃ© anonymes (S.A.'s, public corporations). Most of these companies have a minority of their stock listed on public exchanges. The state also has minority stakes in many other large companies, mostly in the aerospace and defense, oil & gas production, banking, transport, and telecom sectors. However, these companies aren't as vertically integrated as their US counterparts; a much greater share of production occurs in fully private small- and medium-sized enterprises. All of the shops, cafes, and restaurants are privately-run small businesses. Agriculture is almost all family farms. Health care is sort of complicated: one of 3 state insurance funds pays for 70-95% of necessary procedures, and most people have what they call "top-up" private insurance for the balance. General practitioners are almost exclusively private practitioners, as are lower percentage of specialists; I'd say a little over half of the hospitals are publicly owned and managed. All-in-all, the French health care system routinely scores as the best in the world, and I concur completely with that assessment. I'd much rather be sick there than over here - not least because I know I won't have to file for bankruptcy if I require some expensive treatment. If you ask me, I think their Dirigisme approach works extremely well, and it's really impressive what they've accomplished. I mean, this is a country with no energy resources other than a bit of uranium, and they're one of the world's largest energy exporters. You can take a high-speed train and get from Paris to the Med in just a few hours. There's almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here. They only work 35 hours a week, but they're the most productive workforce in the world, and they make a good bit more than Americans for the same work. So yeah, it's just great, all of it - the schools, the culture, the food, the wine, the women, the language, the 6 weeks of guaranteed vacation - it all kicks the hell out of what we've got here on the American economic plantation. Well, except for all of that god-awful accordion music, but hey, no place is perfect. In fact, I'm highly considering moving back in a few months. Especially considering that the fake American consumer economy is collapsing, whilst France and Germany which, according to free-market fanatics and laissez-faire Talibanis, have "socialist" economies (e.g., economies based on scientific and technological development, social solidarity, the production of useful things, and taking care of the needs of the population. This stands in stark contrast to the American economy, which is now solidly based on real estate and financial derivatives speculation, nickel-and-diming your fellow citizens to death, worldwide banking ponzi schemes, the wanton slaughter of poor brown people around the globe, and the shoveling of ever-greater quantities of GMO franken-foods down the pie-hole of the brain-dead, morbidly obese American consumer like some duck on a Foie Gras farm.) are already in recovery. "This causes their economies to stagnate to the degree the collectivist tendencies of socialism are enforced." Seeing as how you've already embarrassed yourself enough by spouting your warmed-over, incessantly debunked Reagan-era talking points, I don't think this even requires a response. "I recommend you read â€œCowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Realityâ€* By Olaf Gersemann" I've heard of it - more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common sense, common decency, civil society, and social solidarity, and instead adopt the American credo of the last few decades: "GIMME IT, IT'S MINE! GIMME GIMME! I DON'T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING, I'M A SELF-MADE MAN!!! GIMME MORE! I WANT IT NOW!!! WHAT, YOU DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?! WHO CARES, YOU LAZY CANCER KID?! I don't care if you're 9 years old and have leukemia, PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS AND GO GET A JOB WITH BENEFITS ALREADY! SCREW YOU KID, I PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY! IT'S MINE! IT'S ALL MINE! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!! MORE MORE MORE!!!" Yeah, real great that's worked out for us. Me, I think I'm going to move back across the pond. I'm sure your free-market slogans and laissez-faire dogmas will be a great comfort as the phony American economy descends into neo-feudalism and Zimbabwean living standards. Oh wait - you'll just go back to wallowing in willful ignorance and your trusty old anti-politics. Yes, just blame everything on that evil gubmint! It's all the gubmint's fault!

“Your statement: ‘crowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottom’ is economically incorrect it assumes that capitol is static when the opposite is the truth.” It assumes nothing of the sort. Economic growth comes from, and in the long run can only come from, increases in the productive powers of labor. This can be done through a number of means: qualitative and/or quantitative increases in the stock of physically productive capital; scientific progress, and the discovery and technical implementation of new physical principles; the development of more and better public infrastructure, which translates into the production of physical savings and the lowering of economic overhead throughout the economy; an increase in the skill level of the workforce; and so on. But I never said or implied that the capital stock is static – although, if you believe the oft-parroted myth that “government can’t create wealth,” you are tacitly making such a claim. What I will say, which is backed up by objective fact, is that inequality in the distribution of wealth and the supply of capital goods and other means of production have little to do with each other, and may in fact have an inverse relationship. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has the world’s highest degree of economic inequality, and is among the world’s least capitalized economies. France is the world’s most capital-intensive economy, and they have a very low degree of economic inequality as well as a very progressive tax structure. Back home here, the total supply of productive capital in the US economy has been decreasing steadily for decades, while economic inequality has been increasing. So, the whole notion that a greater degree of economic inequality means a greater capital stock is totally false. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. It seems that the problem here is that you conflate the hoarding of paper assets by a small elite with the formation and accumulation of productive capital. Or, put another way, that the more wealth the rich acquire, the more actually productive capital there is in the economy. This is clearly not the case – there is no guarantee that the increase in the volume of savings possessed by the rich is not merely the result of a transfer from the working and middle classes. But hey, economic inequality in the US today is at levels unseen since feudal times, so that must mean the economy is booming, right? Err… not so much. “When capital is generated the total pool of available capital increases and there for that is more for everyone.” That is by no means assured. First of all, let’s be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital. The notion that “what’s good for Wall Street is good for main street” has been utterly obliterated by the experience of the last decade or so. Now, even assuming you mean productive capital, perhaps the rich merely consume the increased productive surplus themselves? Or maybe new capital goods are created/purchased by a firm not with the intention of increasing production? For example, in the 1990’s, the Gillette corporation built new factories in Europe, but not to substantially increase their manufacturing output. Instead, they let it sit mostly idle, so as to apply downward pressure on wages at their US plants – in case the US workers decided that they deserved a share of the firm’s rising profits since they produced them, management could merely shift production to their European facilities, so as to keep their domestic markets supplied. In other words, the sole purpose of this investment was not to increase sales/production, only to use the slack production capacity as a bludgeon with which to beat their labor force. Many, many similar examples exist. The point is that unless there’s some mechanism to ensure that workers share in the increased economic surplus they’ve produced, firms often find that it’s more profitable (in the short term of course; in the long run, it’s untenable) to drive down wages (which merely creates more accounting profits), rather than increase aggregate production (from which most benefit). In short, your claim is only true if industry is already operating at full capacity; however, since WWII, US industry has only operated at an average of about 70% of capacity. Right now, it’s even lower – barely over 50%. “Now I grant you that this is only true in a Capitalist economy operating a free market.” Ah yes, the “free market.” If only one existed, we’d have the capitalist utopia you imagine. Of course, in the real world, you find that collusion (e.g., price and wage fixing, and other forms of anti-competitive practice) amongst large enterprises is the norm, and “free market” competition is a very rare exception – if it exists at all. In practice (and I am well aware that Friedmanites and Hayekians have a very difficult time distinguishing between fantasy and reality), instead of “free market competition,” you find cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, monopsonies, oligopsonies, and on and on. “In a socialist economy the capital is static mandated by the government.” What on earth are you talking about?? To my knowledge, there is not a single “socialist” economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy. The Soviet Union was THE “truly socialist” economy. In 1917, there was virtually no industry in the country. By 1941, they were turning out tanks, planes, rifles, and all sorts of munitions in the millions. Now, sorry if I seem harsh, but you can’t make absolutely false, totally absurd statements like that and expect to be taken seriously. As to how socialist economies actually work, we must first realize that “socialism” is an extremely nebulous term; these days, all it really means is that production should be organized to benefit the whole society, not just a small elite. As a practical matter, we can conceptually divide socialist economies into two different types: on the one hand, you have those of the command-and-control sort, such as that which existed in the USSR, where the state owns almost all capital, and makes all or nearly all decisions concerning production. On the other hand, you have those approximating the Dirigisme model used (very successfully, I might add) in post-WWII France, and emulated in many other countries. Under the Dirigisme model, the state has a strong directive role in production and usually owns some of the strategically important large industries; however, small and medium-sized enterprises operate as in a capitalist system. It’s actually debatable as to whether or not this model is truly “socialist,” as the highest form of capital organization remains the equities markets, but that’s just arguing semantics. Likewise, there is never a hard-and-fast distinction in practice – the Social Market Economy of Germany is mostly privatized, but heavily regulated and unionized, and the labor unions hold seats on the boards of most major companies; the Soviets, on the other hand, set the standard for a centrally planned economy, but even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Union’s history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms. So, under the Soviet model, basic production guidelines were put forward by the Politburo in a series of 5-year plans; these included outlines of major investment projects, preliminary targets for the production of basic commodities, and general economic strategy. After approval and revision by the Communist Party’s Central Committee, the plan was sent to government ministries for further review, revision and elaboration. Next, the economic plan went to Gosplan, the Soviet planning agency. Gosplan would gather data on enterprise inventories, and ensure input commodities were provided for the planned outputs for each sector of the economy. The plan was then broken down further for individual regions, economic ministries, enterprises, and so forth. During this process, there were various reviews and bargaining procedures. The individual enterprises – which weren’t all that different from capitalist companies – of course were responsible for doing the actual production. However, totally contrary to your assertion, the Soviet Economy was always oriented around (and nearly always achieved, until the late 70’s) high growth through the development of heavy industry and large infrastructure projects. This approach was quite successful for a long time: by the 1970’s, the Soviet economy was the 2nd largest in the world; destitution, starvation, and unemployment (all rampant pre-1917) had become virtually non-existent; industrial and infrastructure development were closing in on Western standards; and living standards had risen many-fold since the revolution. However, due primarily to inept and short-sighted leadership, the USSR ran into three major problems beginning in the 1970’s: first, while the defense and related sectors remained top-notch until the end, for a variety of reasons, it became increasingly difficult (in no small part due to official state ideology) to transfer scientific and productive improvements from the defense sector to the civilian economy; this led to continued growth in the defense sector, but much slower growth in civilian production. Second, due to the high oil prices during this time, the USSR was flush with foreign exchange earnings. This induced the intelligentsia to stop making adequate investments in infrastructure and industrial production, instead relying on forex subsidies to enterprises to encourage growth. When oil tanked in the 1980’s, these subsidies became unsustainable, their balance of payments deficit exploded, so to maintain output, the leadership was forced to go deeply into debt. Third, the debacle in Afghanistan wreaked havoc on the already stagnating economy, necessitated even more foreign borrowing, and began a process of physical breakdown of the economy. Gorbachev of came to power in the 1980’s, but rather than rebuild the physical economy, he engaged in draconian austerity policies (which only aggravated the ongoing physical breakdown) and dismantled parts of the planning apparatus, which did not result in an increased role of market forces, but merely led to chaos, rampant shortages of goods, and shortly thereafter, the collapse of the USSR. — As for the “Euro-Socialists,” as you call them, you don’t know what you’re talking about here either. The general philosophy of European economic policy is that the state provides some direction for private production, as well provision of an array of high-quality social services, while the private sector does most of the heavy lifting. Basically, they’re just not as dogmatic about economic policy over there; if the state can do something best, then the policy is for the state to do it, if the private sector can do it better, then it tends to be a private-sector activity. To go back to France again, which provides a typical example (and because I’ve lived there) the state owns majority stakes in the railroad system (SNCF), the power grid (EDF), gas infrastructure (GDF), the national airline (Air France), the state nuclear plant manufacturer (Areva), and the mail service (La Poste). However, these are not structured as government agencies, but rather as sociÃ©tÃ© anonymes (S.A.‘s, public corporations). Most of these companies have a minority of their stock listed on public exchanges. The state also has minority stakes in many other large companies, mostly in the aerospace and defense, oil & gas production, banking, transport, and telecom sectors. However, these companies aren’t as vertically integrated as their US counterparts; a much greater share of production occurs in fully private small- and medium-sized enterprises. All of the shops, cafes, and restaurants are privately-run small businesses. Agriculture is almost all family farms. Health care is sort of complicated: one of 3 state insurance funds pays for 70-95% of necessary procedures, and most people have what they call “top-up” private insurance for the balance. General practitioners are almost exclusively private practitioners, as are lower percentage of specialists; I’d say a little over half of the hospitals are publicly owned and managed. All-in-all, the French health care system routinely scores as the best in the world, and I concur completely with that assessment. I’d much rather be sick there than over here – not least because I know I won’t have to file for bankruptcy if I require some expensive treatment. If you ask me, I think their Dirigisme approach works extremely well, and it’s really impressive what they’ve accomplished. I mean, this is a country with no energy resources other than a bit of uranium, and they’re one of the world’s largest energy exporters. You can take a high-speed train and get from Paris to the Med in just a few hours. There’s almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here. They only work 35 hours a week, but they’re the most productive workforce in the world, and they make a good bit more than Americans for the same work. So yeah, it’s just great, all of it – the schools, the culture, the food, the wine, the women, the language, the 6 weeks of guaranteed vacation – it all kicks the hell out of what we’ve got here on the American economic plantation. Well, except for all of that god-awful accordion music, but hey, no place is perfect. In fact, I’m highly considering moving back in a few months. Especially considering that the fake American consumer economy is collapsing, whilst France and Germany which, according to free-market fanatics and laissez-faire Talibanis, have “socialist” economies (e.g., economies based on scientific and technological development, social solidarity, the production of useful things, and taking care of the needs of the population. This stands in stark contrast to the American economy, which is now solidly based on real estate and financial derivatives speculation, nickel-and-diming your fellow citizens to death, worldwide banking ponzi schemes, the wanton slaughter of poor brown people around the globe, and the shoveling of ever-greater quantities of GMO franken-foods down the pie-hole of the brain-dead, morbidly obese American consumer like some duck on a Foie Gras farm.) are already in recovery. “This causes their economies to stagnate to the degree the collectivist tendencies of socialism are enforced.” Seeing as how you’ve already embarrassed yourself enough by spouting your warmed-over, incessantly debunked Reagan-era talking points, I don’t think this even requires a response. “I recommend you read â€œCowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Realityâ€* By Olaf Gersemann” I’ve heard of it – more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common sense, common decency, civil society, and social solidarity, and instead adopt the American credo of the last few decades: “GIMME IT, IT’S MINE! GIMME GIMME! I DON’T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING, I’M A SELF-MADE MAN!!! GIMME MORE! I WANT IT NOW!!! WHAT, YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?! WHO CARES, YOU LAZY CANCER KID?! I don’t care if you’re 9 years old and have leukemia, PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS AND GO GET A JOB WITH BENEFITS ALREADY! SCREW YOU KID, I PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY! IT’S MINE! IT’S ALL MINE! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!! MORE MORE MORE!!!” Yeah, real great that’s worked out for us. Me, I think I’m going to move back across the pond. I’m sure your free-market slogans and laissez-faire dogmas will be a great comfort as the phony American economy descends into neo-feudalism and Zimbabwean living standards. Oh wait – you’ll just go back to wallowing in willful ignorance and your trusty old anti-politics. Yes, just blame everything on that evil gubmint! It’s all the gubmint’s fault!

2009-08-28T22:23:04-07:00

26072

true

false

published

2009-08-28T22:23:04-07:00

8735

528470

YOU _â€œIt assumes nothing of the sort.â€* ME: Please re read what you posted, â€œThe rich pay such a relatively large percentage of aggregate tax revenue because the incomes of those nearer the bottom of the ladder have been destroyed by the free trade swindleâ€¦â€*. The growth of capital (and conversely its reduction) benefits all members of the society. It is a simplification but true to say that if the rich get richer in a Free Market so do I. Conversely if the rich become impoverished then so do I. Opportunity comes from Capital. Capital is generated by the market place not by Government. Government can advantage itself using the market place but it cannot successfully supplant a free market with a Government operated fraud. YOU_ â€œThat is by no means assured. First of all, letâ€™s be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital. ME_ Although I appreciate your intellectual capacity I am unwilling to accept your thesis on your unsubstantiated statements. This is especially true when you consider some of the outright misrepresentations you have made in other issues. Could you provide some proof (historical world be best) that what you are saying has some basis in reality? Also money like labor is a commodity that seeks its own good, its own level of value return. All Capital is productive because â€œwhatâ€™s good for Wall Street is good for Main Streetâ€* is true. The median income in the USA in 2007 dollars for 1990 was $29,000. In 2007 that had grown to $49,000. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.html YOU - â€œTo my knowledge, there is not a single â€œsocialistâ€* economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy.â€* â€œbut even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Unionâ€™s history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms.â€* ME: Your Knowledge is, as I have suggested other where, faulty. The Soviet economy was in decline prior to WWII and after the boost that patriotism coupled to the threat of national annihilation by Germany had passed the basic destructive tendencies in all Collectivist societies acted to bring about the destruction of Soviet Russia. Try reading the attached. http://www.geocities.com/rusekon/#USSR YOU_ In France: â€œThereâ€™s almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here.â€* â€œThey only work 35 hours a week,â€* ME: 6.2% of the French population is impoverished vs. 12% in the USA; however, the standards of what constitutes â€œpovertyâ€* in France and the USA are nowhere near compatible. Perhaps the best reflection of just what the relative economic situation of the poor in either country is the relative purchasing power of the individual combined with the GDP. In this analysis the USA is 4th behind Luxemburg, Iceland and Norway. France is 21st. Some racial/ethnic/religious tensions? What a joke! There are neighborhoods in Paris and other French cities where the police do not go and where Sharia is followed. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1639 Unemployment even in the best of times runs at 9.3% on average in France. And this is long term unemployment. In order to maintain their almost 10% unemployment it is necessary to have a 35 hour work week and â€œfeather beddingâ€* in France is a national scandal. Citizens pay for their â€œFreeâ€* treatment through monthly taxes taken directly out of their paychecks and annual income tax returns. Since the tax system is â€œProgressiveâ€* the more you earn the more you pay. The cost of this system is 11% of the French DGP (16% for the USA), but the hidden secret is that the entire system fail if it were not for the private insurance and individuals that accounts for 24% of all costs. So the actual cost of the French system is around 16% of their GDP or equal to the USA and climbing. http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france YOU _ â€œIâ€™ve heard of it â€“ more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common senseâ€¦â€* ME_ Typical, no logic, no reasonable response but invective. Read the book then use something other than yelling YOU _ â€œMe, I think Iâ€™m going to move back across the pondâ€¦â€* ME _ Ah yes? Any time soon? Cheers! H. Evers

YOU _â€œIt assumes nothing of the sort.â€* ME: Please re read what you posted, â€œThe rich pay such a relatively large percentage of aggregate tax revenue because the incomes of those nearer the bottom of the ladder have been destroyed by the free trade swindleâ€¦â€*. The growth of capital (and conversely its reduction) benefits all members of the society. It is a simplification but true to say that if the rich get richer in a Free Market so do I. Conversely if the rich become impoverished then so do I. Opportunity comes from Capital. Capital is generated by the market place not by Government. Government can advantage itself using the market place but it cannot successfully supplant a free market with a Government operated fraud. YOU_ â€œThat is by no means assured. First of all, letâ€™s be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital. ME_ Although I appreciate your intellectual capacity I am unwilling to accept your thesis on your unsubstantiated statements. This is especially true when you consider some of the outright misrepresentations you have made in other issues. Could you provide some proof (historical world be best) that what you are saying has some basis in reality? Also money like labor is a commodity that seeks its own good, its own level of value return. All Capital is productive because â€œwhatâ€™s good for Wall Street is good for Main Streetâ€* is true. The median income in the USA in 2007 dollars for 1990 was $29,000. In 2007 that had grown to $49,000. <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.html</a> YOU – â€œTo my knowledge, there is not a single â€œsocialistâ€* economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy.â€* â€œbut even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Unionâ€™s history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms.â€* ME: Your Knowledge is, as I have suggested other where, faulty. The Soviet economy was in decline prior to WWII and after the boost that patriotism coupled to the threat of national annihilation by Germany had passed the basic destructive tendencies in all Collectivist societies acted to bring about the destruction of Soviet Russia. Try reading the attached. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rusekon/#" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocities.com/rusekon/#</a>USSR YOU_ In France: â€œThereâ€™s almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here.â€* â€œThey only work 35 hours a week,â€* ME: 6.2% of the French population is impoverished vs. 12% in the USA; however, the standards of what constitutes â€œpovertyâ€* in France and the USA are nowhere near compatible. Perhaps the best reflection of just what the relative economic situation of the poor in either country is the relative purchasing power of the individual combined with the GDP. In this analysis the USA is 4th behind Luxemburg, Iceland and Norway. France is 21st. Some racial/ethnic/religious tensions? What a joke! There are neighborhoods in Paris and other French cities where the police do not go and where Sharia is followed. <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1639" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1639</a> Unemployment even in the best of times runs at 9.3% on average in France. And this is long term unemployment. In order to maintain their almost 10% unemployment it is necessary to have a 35 hour work week and â€œfeather beddingâ€* in France is a national scandal. Citizens pay for their â€œFreeâ€* treatment through monthly taxes taken directly out of their paychecks and annual income tax returns. Since the tax system is â€œProgressiveâ€* the more you earn the more you pay. The cost of this system is 11% of the French DGP (16% for the USA), but the hidden secret is that the entire system fail if it were not for the private insurance and individuals that accounts for 24% of all costs. So the actual cost of the French system is around 16% of their GDP or equal to the USA and climbing. <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france</a> YOU _ â€œIâ€™ve heard of it â€“ more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common senseâ€¦â€* ME_ Typical, no logic, no reasonable response but invective. Read the book then use something other than yelling YOU _ â€œMe, I think Iâ€™m going to move back across the pondâ€¦â€* ME _ Ah yes? Any time soon? Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-31T08:06:18-07:00

26107

false

true

published

2009-08-31T08:06:18-07:00

2059

2009-08-28T13:33:33-07:00

2009-06-17T08:32:42-07:00

510176

false

503

active

2059

510176

I believe that it is pretty obvious that the efforts of the democrat socialist party to transform this country into a socialist/fascist state are having an adverse effect on the economy. Supporters of this socialist/fascist will object that the economic problems were caused by the previous administration and to some degree they would be correct. However, I ask you why has the present administration and congress continued to pursue the same failed policies while aggressively assaulting the creators of wealth in this country and taking over its industry? Never has the government run a company successfully, Look a Fanny and Freddy! Heck look at the TVA if you want to see a long term failure. This president and this congress have incurred more debt than all other congresses put together and this is the first year I cannot wait to see what is next. Around the world the media (media that has not sold its soul to this administration) marvels at our slide to a fascist state. Itâ€™s time for those of you who wanted Change to finally realize what kind of change you are getting. See you at a tea party Cheers H. Evers

I believe that it is pretty obvious that the efforts of the democrat socialist party to transform this country into a socialist/fascist state are having an adverse effect on the economy. Supporters of this socialist/fascist will object that the economic problems were caused by the previous administration and to some degree they would be correct. However, I ask you why has the present administration and congress continued to pursue the same failed policies while aggressively assaulting the creators of wealth in this country and taking over its industry? Never has the government run a company successfully, Look a Fanny and Freddy! Heck look at the TVA if you want to see a long term failure. This president and this congress have incurred more debt than all other congresses put together and this is the first year I cannot wait to see what is next. Around the world the media (media that has not sold its soul to this administration) marvels at our slide to a fascist state. Itâ€™s time for those of you who wanted Change to finally realize what kind of change you are getting. See you at a tea party Cheers H. Evers

2009-06-17T08:32:46-07:00

24615

false

true

published

2009-06-17T08:32:46-07:00

2059

510176

Dude, you need to get a clue. Saying "socialist/fascist state" is logically equivalent to saying the sky is blue orange or that Bush was a brilliant idiot. In other words, they're contradictory terms. Socialism is when the state takes over private corporations and/or industries and runs them (at least theoretically) in the interests of the society as a whole. Fascism is when private corporations take over the state and run it in their own interests. Socialism is egalitarian and democratic; fascism is anti-egalitarian and oligarchical. Very large differences. Now, it is true that the Democratic party - or the elite of it, anyways - and the Obama administration are moving in a fascist direction; however, that is by no means a trend which is restricted to the Democrats alone. Fascism is bipartisan. I don't even get why you're still hung up on the two heads of the single party anyways; we only have one party in America - the corporate party. This is politics in America today: Democratic partisan: "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." Republican partisan: "I think the puppet on the right embodies my beliefs." Informed citizen: "Hey wait a second, there's one guy holding both puppets!" Corporate media: "Go back to bed America, your government is in control. And for God's sake, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Dude, you need to get a clue. Saying “socialist/fascist state” is logically equivalent to saying the sky is blue orange or that Bush was a brilliant idiot. In other words, they’re contradictory terms. Socialism is when the state takes over private corporations and/or industries and runs them (at least theoretically) in the interests of the society as a whole. Fascism is when private corporations take over the state and run it in their own interests. Socialism is egalitarian and democratic; fascism is anti-egalitarian and oligarchical. Very large differences. Now, it is true that the Democratic party – or the elite of it, anyways – and the Obama administration are moving in a fascist direction; however, that is by no means a trend which is restricted to the Democrats alone. Fascism is bipartisan. I don’t even get why you’re still hung up on the two heads of the single party anyways; we only have one party in America – the corporate party. This is politics in America today: Democratic partisan: “I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.” Republican partisan: “I think the puppet on the right embodies my beliefs.” Informed citizen: “Hey wait a second, there’s one guy holding both puppets!” Corporate media: “Go back to bed America, your government is in control. And for God’s sake, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

2009-08-26T15:48:49-07:00

25998

true

false

published

2009-08-26T15:48:49-07:00

8735

510176

Ah my poor confused friend your comment â€œSocialism is when the state takes over private corporations and/or industries and runs them (at least theoretically) in the interests of the society as a whole. Fascism is when private corporations take over the state and run it in their own interests. Socialism is egalitarian and democratic; fascism is anti-egalitarian and oligarchical. Very large differences.â€* Is another indication of the poor level of education in this country. Contrary to your assertion that socialism and fascism are so very different they are in fact brothers. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism for that matter) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, people retain the pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal. Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use itâ€”at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens. Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisisâ€”and â€œthe public goodâ€* â€œdiversityâ€* â€œpolitical correct thoughtâ€* the â€œglobal warming crisisâ€* are all altars on which victims are immolated. There are, I agree, stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of â€œnational sacrificeâ€* to achieve the greater good. Bottom line they are both totalitarian, collectivist systems intent on amassing power for an elite ruling class. Hmmm sounds like some people we know in Washington DC doesnâ€™t it? As for your contention that it is all a plot of the nefarious corporations well I am sure that there are Fascist/socialists in the corporations and I know just how to fix their wagon and return the country to prosperityâ€¦Try Capitalism. Cheers! H. Evers

Ah my poor confused friend your comment â€œSocialism is when the state takes over private corporations and/or industries and runs them (at least theoretically) in the interests of the society as a whole. Fascism is when private corporations take over the state and run it in their own interests. Socialism is egalitarian and democratic; fascism is anti-egalitarian and oligarchical. Very large differences.â€* Is another indication of the poor level of education in this country. Contrary to your assertion that socialism and fascism are so very different they are in fact brothers. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism for that matter) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, people retain the pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal. Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use itâ€”at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens. Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisisâ€”and â€œthe public goodâ€* â€œdiversityâ€* â€œpolitical correct thoughtâ€* the â€œglobal warming crisisâ€* are all altars on which victims are immolated. There are, I agree, stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of â€œnational sacrificeâ€* to achieve the greater good. Bottom line they are both totalitarian, collectivist systems intent on amassing power for an elite ruling class. Hmmm sounds like some people we know in Washington DC doesnâ€™t it? As for your contention that it is all a plot of the nefarious corporations well I am sure that there are Fascist/socialists in the corporations and I know just how to fix their wagon and return the country to prosperityâ€¦Try Capitalism. Cheers! H. Evers

2009-08-27T16:58:23-07:00

26016

false

true

published

2009-08-27T16:58:23-07:00

2059

510176

"The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism for that matter) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property." Not private property entirely, just capital. Even the Soviet Union had personal property rights. "Under fascism, people retain the pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." No, under fascism, real government - an organization formed by and for the general public to advance the general welfare - doesn't actually exist; it is merely a subsidiary of private corporations. So it's private capital that makes such decisions. The trend in unregulated or loosely-regulated capitalism is towards consolidation and cartelization; however, once this reaches a point in which a few oligopolies dominate every industry, these cartels cannot expand any further, the ruling oligarchs take over the state and turn to cuts in wages and production to restore profitability. This is the essence of fascism: it is the end game of laissez-faire capitalism IN PRACTICE (though I realize not according to free-market dogma). "Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis" You don't know what you're talking about; stop copying talking points verbatim off of the Mises Institute website. In fact, it is under laissez-faire capitalism that sacrifice is demanded by those least able to provide it. We're seeing this now all over the world: the people are constantly told that they must sacrifice their wages, living standards, pensions, social services, etc, all in the name of "competitiveness" - that great ideological fetish of the well-to-do. "The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future" While I don't consider myself a socialist, it is simply false to say that socialist societies have not delivered on those promises. As more than 50% of their economies are in the public sector, you'd probably call the Nordic countries "socialist" - although maybe you won't, as they have some of the highest standards of living in the world. The Soviet Union also experienced tremendous economic success up until the 1980's; in 1917, the Russian Empire was a backwards, feudalistic, largely undeveloped land mass with a tiny aristocracy and the rest of the population living in abject poverty. Not 30 years later, the USSR was an economic, military, and political superpower. So the whole notion that socialism necessarily "creates poverty" is a demonstrable falsehood. "Bottom line they are both totalitarian, collectivist systems" I'm sure you think most, if not all of Europe is "socialist." Is France a totalitarian state? How about Finland? And Germany? I've spent considerable time in all of these countries, and I can say without hesitation that they're freer than the USA. Any hierarchical society can become totalitarian if the ruled don't hold the rulers accountable and keep them in check. However, laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily a totalitarian system, intrinsically and by definition - it demands total subservience of the population to the twin idols of "the market" and "competition." If you don't like it, well tough shit, because you have no other alternative. That is the essence of totalitarianism. "Try Capitalism." Your conception of "pure" capitalism has never existed and will never exist. It is a pipe dream and a marketing slogan, nothing more.

“The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism for that matter) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property.” Not private property entirely, just capital. Even the Soviet Union had personal property rights. “Under fascism, people retain the pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.” No, under fascism, real government – an organization formed by and for the general public to advance the general welfare – doesn’t actually exist; it is merely a subsidiary of private corporations. So it’s private capital that makes such decisions. The trend in unregulated or loosely-regulated capitalism is towards consolidation and cartelization; however, once this reaches a point in which a few oligopolies dominate every industry, these cartels cannot expand any further, the ruling oligarchs take over the state and turn to cuts in wages and production to restore profitability. This is the essence of fascism: it is the end game of laissez-faire capitalism IN PRACTICE (though I realize not according to free-market dogma). “Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis” You don’t know what you’re talking about; stop copying talking points verbatim off of the Mises Institute website. In fact, it is under laissez-faire capitalism that sacrifice is demanded by those least able to provide it. We’re seeing this now all over the world: the people are constantly told that they must sacrifice their wages, living standards, pensions, social services, etc, all in the name of “competitiveness” – that great ideological fetish of the well-to-do. “The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future” While I don’t consider myself a socialist, it is simply false to say that socialist societies have not delivered on those promises. As more than 50% of their economies are in the public sector, you’d probably call the Nordic countries “socialist” – although maybe you won’t, as they have some of the highest standards of living in the world. The Soviet Union also experienced tremendous economic success up until the 1980’s; in 1917, the Russian Empire was a backwards, feudalistic, largely undeveloped land mass with a tiny aristocracy and the rest of the population living in abject poverty. Not 30 years later, the USSR was an economic, military, and political superpower. So the whole notion that socialism necessarily “creates poverty” is a demonstrable falsehood. “Bottom line they are both totalitarian, collectivist systems” I’m sure you think most, if not all of Europe is “socialist.” Is France a totalitarian state? How about Finland? And Germany? I’ve spent considerable time in all of these countries, and I can say without hesitation that they’re freer than the USA. Any hierarchical society can become totalitarian if the ruled don’t hold the rulers accountable and keep them in check. However, laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily a totalitarian system, intrinsically and by definition – it demands total subservience of the population to the twin idols of “the market” and “competition.” If you don’t like it, well tough shit, because you have no other alternative. That is the essence of totalitarianism. “Try Capitalism.” Your conception of “pure” capitalism has never existed and will never exist. It is a pipe dream and a marketing slogan, nothing more.

2009-08-28T12:22:30-07:00

26051

true

false

published

2009-08-28T12:22:30-07:00

8735

510176

And your references for these interesting "facts" are..... My references are Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto by Marx, the Fascist Manifesto of the British Union of Fascists, 1934 First Printing of the New Edition of April 1934. And Benito Mussolini, "Foundations and Doctrine of Fascism Cheers H. Evers

And your references for these interesting “facts” are….. My references are Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto by Marx, the Fascist Manifesto of the British Union of Fascists, 1934 First Printing of the New Edition of April 1934. And Benito Mussolini, "Foundations and Doctrine of Fascism Cheers H. Evers

2009-08-28T13:33:33-07:00

26059

false

true

published

2009-08-28T13:33:33-07:00

2059

2009-08-13T17:10:34-07:00

533120

false

1324

503

active

2004

533120

This point is deceitful because it was Reagan's intention to lower the top marginal rate to 28%. He inherited a top marginal rate of 70% (which President Kennedy had lowered from the 90% top marginal rate that he had inherited)

This point is deceitful because it was Reagan’s intention to lower the top marginal rate to 28%. He inherited a top marginal rate of 70% (which President Kennedy had lowered from the 90% top marginal rate that he had inherited)

2009-08-13T17:10:34-07:00

25794

false

true

published

2009-08-13T17:10:34-07:00

2004

2009-08-03T14:04:24-07:00

528284

false

503

active

2059

528284

BOHICA: President Obamaâ€™s Treasury Secretary announces that â€œwe will do what we must to reduce deficitsâ€*. Yep everything but reduce spending! So you middle class Obama voters for change that thought you would not have to pay for it get ready cause this is going to hurt you more than it is President Obama. Ah yes â€œChangeâ€* for the heck of it! Cheers H. Evers

BOHICA: President Obamaâ€™s Treasury Secretary announces that â€œwe will do what we must to reduce deficitsâ€*. Yep everything but reduce spending! So you middle class Obama voters for change that thought you would not have to pay for it get ready cause this is going to hurt you more than it is President Obama. Ah yes â€œChangeâ€* for the heck of it! Cheers H. Evers

2009-08-03T14:04:24-07:00

25612

false

true

published

2009-08-03T14:04:24-07:00

2059