Quote :

"in 3.5 years, he's outspent what the frivolous spending Bush II did in 8. my main hang up with him is fiscal irresponsibility, and that's why i won't vote for him."

Quote :

"Obama's done a tremendous amount of damage to the economy thus far, and I would rather he not have the chance to do anymore. (he, admittedly, did not inherit a great situation, either... but I personally believe he has made things worse, when he had a chance to do make it better. Nixing the bailouts would've gone a long way with me, but instead he added to them, throwing good money after bad)."

I'm genuinely curious, do any of you really support an austerity budget? I mean, we have two things to talk about, decreasing spending and increasing revenue. So you could have a "tax and spend" position, that's a valid position.

So here are your choices:
- tax and spend
- austerity (tax and cut)
- no new taxes and cut
- deficits don't matter (no new taxes and spend)
- I DON'T LIKE MATH!

I mean, on the one hand you have Ron Paul who is probably the only honest politician in the nation, who actually admits that he's in favor of the austerity position. His actual campaign position is to cut $1T from the budget in his first year. No one else, not the GOP in particular, will admit to a position like this that might be unpopular. They take the option of not liking math.

For the rest of you who think you support austerity, do you really support austerity? I don't believe you. This is deathly unpopular in Europe right now, and economists are against it. Correct or not, many believe that an austerity policy is quite likely of running us into perpetual depression. Do you really believe in this? I think you're all hypocrites who won't even define a mathematically consistent policy that you favor.

[Edited on August 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2012 5:45:43 PM

they're unpopular largely because folks are effectively being severed from the government teat. we can no longer sustain the entitlement spending our nation has become accustomed to.

most people will already concede that social security will not be there when we reach retirement age. we have to begin to roll back these social safety nets that we can't afford and we have to take some lumps for a few years to get back on track, or else we're going to devolve into a state of insolvency. we need to withdraw from costly foreign entanglements, work to remove so much of our population from the government dole and reduce our spending across the board.

if you believe de Tocqueville, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

we're approaching that stage right now, imho... it will be a painful shift, especially for those who know nothing more than spending their lives living off of government programs, but it's one we must make.

8/23/2012 6:20:00 PM

nah... all we really need to do is stop starting wars and stop trying to build more parts of our country on other peoples' land.

8/23/2012 6:23:44 PM

^^ so you are in favor of austerity?

8/23/2012 6:38:08 PM

are you in favor of spending money we don't have?

8/23/2012 6:41:45 PM

Spending money we don't have?

We have always done that, it's the way our economy works.

We send robots to mars and watch Ouch My Balls motherfucker

8/23/2012 6:54:55 PM

I'm in favor of austerity.

I think we need massive cuts to the budge in both entitlements and defense.

8/23/2012 7:00:08 PM

"entitlement programs" is such a loaded and pointless phrase to use in a discussion like this.

8/23/2012 7:06:31 PM

Quote :

"Bush inherited 5.7 trillion in debt and turned it into a 10.6 triillion debt. you can check politifact or factcheck.org on those numbers. Reagan, Bush II and Obama have all been horrendous spenders. Reagan's the freakin' poster child for the GOP and when you convert his spending numbers into today figures and adjust for the rate of inflation, he spend nearly as much as Bush II in 8 years, and Obama in 3.5. Obama's done a tremendous amount of damage to the economy thus far, and I would rather he not have the chance to do anymore. (he, admittedly, did not inherit a great situation, either... but I personally believe he has made things worse, when he had a chance to do make it better. Nixing the bailouts would've gone a long way with me, but instead he added to them, throwing good money after bad)."

What I was referring to, was that when W took office in 2001, he inherited a budget surplus. The Congressional Budget Office was even predicting an ever increasing surplus over the next several years. However, by 2002, W had turned that surplus into a budget deficit. The reasons for this were the Bush era tax cuts and defense spending increases.

Therefore, he may have increased the federal deficit by less total value than Obama has in half the time, but he actually turned a budget year surplus into a deficit and the percentage of deficit growth under W is still much higher than it is under Obama.

8/23/2012 8:54:06 PM

Quote :

"they're unpopular largely because folks are effectively being severed from the government teat. we can no longer sustain the entitlement spending our nation has become accustomed to. most people will already concede that social security will not be there when we reach retirement age. we have to begin to roll back these social safety nets that we can't afford and we have to take some lumps for a few years to get back on track, or else we're going to devolve into a state of insolvency. we need to withdraw from costly foreign entanglements, work to remove so much of our population from the government dole and reduce our spending across the board."

They're unpopular because no one has popularized an austerity plan yet, except for Ron Paul. You just regurgitated the bullshit of the Tea Party propaganda right there, bud.

Social Security will absolutely still be around when we retire, and when our children retire. The reason it's in danger is because people keep RAIDING THE DAMN COFFERS. Make it illegal for congress to raid the SS fund that's already in place and SS will be just fine.

21% ($769b) Goes to Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP which overwhelming covers senior citizens and children.
20% ($731b) Goes to Social Security.
20% ($718b) Goes to Defense
13% ($466b) Goes to Safety net programs - tax credits, SSI, Food Stamps and Welfare programs
7% ($250b) Goes to Veterans & Federal Retiree benefits
6% ($230b) Goes to Interest Payments

You can't cut back Medicare/Medicaid without overhauling our health system. As long as all health care is essentially state-to-state monopolies and is INSURANCE rather than SERVICE based, and until the baby boomer generation dies off, costs are going to continue to rise.
If you just cut it back, the repercussions will just fall to the states who will have to raise taxes to offset the federal losses.

Social Security should have an opt-out clause to instead divert money into a regulated 401k/ira. The only purpose of this would be ensure the pay-in to retirement can't be robbed by congress. However this will only reduce SS costs approximately 50 years down the road. There's not much you can do with SS immediately that won't cause massive ripples in the system.

Defense we could legitimately cut MAYBE 20% out of. While I think our defense budget should be less than 1/2 what it is today, I'm not an idiot. If we just slash defense spending it would completely collapse our military-industrial complex and would result in HUGE unemployment numbers for a long, long time. I think a 5-10% short term cut would be manageable over the next 5-10 years.

Safety net programs could be slightly cut back. If you reformed our healthcare system it would reduce the need for some of the programs, and changing the tax code to eliminate the EI tax credit and child tax credit would have a significant (>1b) impact.

Interest we can't do shit about

Benefits for Veterans and Retirees. Cutting the military budget will long-term lower the costs here due to simply being fewer veterans. Federal Employees should see their pensions go bye-bye in favor of standard 401k/SS benefits like the rest of us. That will shave a bit off the costs here.

The reality is, even by slashing and burning everything you can without leaving dead bodies laying in the streets, you are still going to have at LEAST a 3-400 billion dollar shortfall (more likely 500-500 billion) in the short term. The only way in hell to make up for that is to RAISE REVENUE. The easiest way to do that is to remove all the loopholes and shelters for corporate income and repatriation. That alone would bring in anywhere from 20-100 billion in additional revenue, without affecting a single person on the street. Next close personal income tax loop holes, followed by raising estate and capital gains taxes. Finally, bring the top tier marginal tax rate up from 35% to 45% and you will get to your positive budget.

Do this for the next 20 years and we will be out of debt as a country while still keep 20+ million people out of poverty, keeping our kids all well fed, and giving us the opportunity to overhaul our antiquated policies.

[Edited on August 23, 2012 at 9:26 PM. Reason : >]

8/23/2012 9:24:21 PM

Quote :

"They're unpopular because no one has popularized an austerity plan yet, except for Ron Paul. You just regurgitated the bullshit of the Tea Party propaganda right there, bud. Social Security will absolutely still be around when we retire, and when our children retire. The reason it's in danger is because people keep RAIDING THE DAMN COFFERS. Make it illegal for congress to raid the SS fund that's already in place and SS will be just fine. "

From 2000:

Quote :

"Q: What is your Social Security plan? GORE: I will keep it in a lockbox. The interest savings, I would put right back into it. That extends the life for 55 years. I am opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every 6 dollars away from the Trust Fund. It would go bankrupt within this generation. BUSH: We want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money & put it in safe investments so that $1 trillion grows to $3 trillion. The money stays within the system. GORE: I give a new incentive for younger workers to invest their own money. My plan is “Social Security Plus.” The governor’s plan is “Social Security Minus.” Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that’s diverted into the stock market. And if you make bad investments, that’s too bad."

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/al_gore_social_security.htm

8/24/2012 12:12:51 AM

Quote :

"are you in favor of spending money we don't have?"

I'm tax and spend, and I think I'm about the only one who will admit it. In terms of the entire government, I think this is a bad time to cut spending dramatically. I would agree to it getting cut 10% in real terms over a slow, predictable, period. I still see this as a "spend" position because just keeping constant for the next year seems like an uncommon position. I'll go back to my previous points that government contributed to the recession, it didn't soften it.

Quote :

"They're unpopular because no one has popularized an austerity plan yet, except for Ron Paul. You just regurgitated the bullshit of the Tea Party propaganda right there, bud. "

So Neon, it seems you are also tax and spend?

8/24/2012 8:23:16 AM

Noen, I was totally on board with your post except for this part

Quote :

"The reality is, even by slashing and burning everything you can without leaving dead bodies laying in the streets, you are still going to have at LEAST a 3-400 billion dollar shortfall (more likely 500-500 billion) in the short term. The only way in hell to make up for that is to RAISE REVENUE. The easiest way to do that is to remove all the loopholes and shelters for corporate income and repatriation. That alone would bring in anywhere from 20-100 billion in additional revenue, without affecting a single person on the street. Next close personal income tax loop holes, followed by raising estate and capital gains taxes. Finally, bring the top tier marginal tax rate up from 35% to 45% and you will get to your positive budget. "

Raising Estate taxes even higher? They're already ridiculously high. It's basically robbery. And raising the top tier from 35 to 45 would put a huge squeeze on small businesses, and absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs. Why would you not cut long term capital gains and encourage investors to funnel billions of dollars into companies to let them expand and hire? Or at least get rid of the repatriation tax that would allow $1-$2 Trillion of dollars to come back into the US?

8/24/2012 2:14:48 PM

Quote :

" And raising the top tier from 35 to 45 would put a huge squeeze on small businesses, and absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs."

I'm really stupid, so explain this concept to me like I'm 5 years old. If you are raising taxes on profits you make (with the cost of employment taken into account when calculating profits), how would raising the highest marginal rate "absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs"

Are the "job creators" going to just get really angry and start firing people?

8/24/2012 2:20:03 PM

he panders to birthers

8/24/2012 2:26:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm really stupid, so explain this concept to me like I'm 5 years old. If you are raising taxes on profits you make (with the cost of employment taken into account when calculating profits), how would raising the highest marginal rate "absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs" Are the "job creators" going to just get really angry and start firing people? "

very simple. more taxes = less profit. to compensate for less profit, you cut expenses/payroll. most businesses already operate on thin margins due to competition, payroll is usually the only thing they can cut.

8/24/2012 3:08:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm really stupid, so explain this concept to me like I'm 5 years old. If you are raising taxes on profits you make (with the cost of employment taken into account when calculating profits), how would raising the highest marginal rate "absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs" Are the "job creators" going to just get really angry and start firing people?"

Your skepticism is correct. Levying a tax on the cost of revenue for businesses would immediately shut doors and spark massive layoffs, but we don't do that, we only tax the difference between the cost of business and revenue (or profit). If you have capital, you can't opt out. That simply isn't coherent. Your options are to park your wealth in one place, park it in a different place, or spend it. As such, increasing tax on profits (or "capital gains", I'm not picky) won't deprive the economy of any capital. So the capital in the system is constant.

The impact these people are complaining about is a 2nd derivative effect. The tax incentives doesn't affect the total capital our economy has access to, but it does affect the risk tolerance. You could imagine that people might prefer to invest in less risky stuff if taxes on profits are higher. Why? Because gains are taxed but losses don't get you a credit. Expected value of risky investments goes down.

But that only happens in certain circumstances. If you're investing in multiple vehicles, the losses from some will offset the gains from others, and increasing the taxes on gains won't affect risk tolerance. More specifically, tax on profits only affects risk tolerance if the investor has a significant chance of losing a large amount of money across their entire portfolio. This might be a valid argument for entrepreneurs and angel investors... but it's quite tenuous for everyone else, and really for all the entire economy.

--- note: healthcare costs are different ----

I previously assumed that we're talking about costs on profit. If you institute something like social security or mandatory health insurance, that directly affects the price of labor to businesses. From an employment and investment point of view that is terrible.

Quote :

"most businesses already operate on thin margins due to competition, payroll is usually the only thing they can cut."

No, not for taxes on profit such as capital gains. A tax that operates as a multiplier on profit decreases ROI, not cost of business. You could tax capital gains (or corporate tax) infinitely and it wouldn't change the profitability itself.

Quote :

"Raising Estate taxes even higher? They're already ridiculously high. It's basically robbery. And raising the top tier from 35 to 45 would put a huge squeeze on small businesses, and absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs. "

Here, prep-e quoted Noen. Neon referenced "the top tier marginal tax rate up from 35% to 45%"... and unless I'm crazy, that refers to the top tier of federal income tax.

What does the federal income tax have to do with the estate tax?

8/24/2012 3:22:39 PM

Quote :

"very simple. more taxes = less profit. to compensate for less profit, you cut expenses/payroll. most businesses already operate on thin margins due to competition, payroll is usually the only thing they can cut."

^ Thanks for covering what I was about to say, but I'll repeat it anyway because I'm really tired of hearing these bogus arguments.

^^ You are being either stupid or disingenuous. I clarified this point in my post, that the profits are taxed AFTER cost of employment is taken into account. So no, you don't cut expense/payroll when your marginal franchise or income tax goes up... unless you're a fucking moron.

And as for the economy as a whole, lets think critically about what would stimulate the economy more. Tax cuts for the very rich? Or tax cuts for the "not very rich" or "middle class."

Considering Rich people have a lower marginal propensity to consume, and a higher marginal propensity to save, it makes sense to spark an economy by giving tax cuts to the middle, rather than the very rich. This is probably the biggest reason "trickle-down" economics is such a load of bullshit.

If we can't afford to give tax cuts to everyone, then giving the tax cuts to the middle class is much more likely to spark the economy. This goes to the ROI point made above. If people are spending enough and the economy is in good shape, your ROI will be just fine.

8/24/2012 4:40:41 PM

This. Is. Chit Chat.

8/24/2012 4:44:05 PM

I see someone isn't confused about his sexuality anymore!

I'm sure there's plenty ignorant threads around where you would feel right at home though dude...

8/24/2012 4:48:58 PM

Quote :

"COMMERCE, Mich. — Mitt Romney made a joke about his birth certificate at a rally here Friday that many in the crowd heard as a swipe at President Obama, who has been the subject of false theories about whether he was born in the United States. Noting that he and his wife, Ann, were born in Michigan hospitals, Romney said: “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place where both of us were born and raised.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-jokes-about-his-birth-certificate-obama-campaign-accuses-him-of-embracing-birtherism/2012/08/24/bda35810-ee14-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html

Romney is a filthy dirtbag.

8/24/2012 5:26:27 PM

romney might be a dirtbag, but you're getting mad at that comment? really?

8/24/2012 5:30:16 PM

^^U MAD?

[Edited on August 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM. Reason : lol]

8/24/2012 5:30:48 PM

Quote :

"romney might be a dirtbag, but you're getting mad at that comment? really?"

That comment didn't bother me right at first because I figured it was just him trying to be funny.

But that isn't what he was doing. He knows what he's doing. It's the same reason he keeps airing ads about Welfare.

I respect John McCain for not stooping to the lady's level at his town hall when she said she didn't trust Obama because he's a Muslim

Romney just agreed with that lady in his desperate effort to appeal to the birther movement

8/24/2012 5:59:47 PM

so...he's trying to get votes? just seems like politics as usual to me, and we've still got months more of negative political ads from both sides to come before the election!

8/24/2012 6:02:49 PM

Just because you think it's "politics as usual" doesn't mean it is any less of a dickbag thing to do.

8/24/2012 7:07:07 PM

maybe if Obama hadn't waited like 2 years or whatever to finally release his birth certificate, Romney's joke wouldn't have even been applicable

hope TOB doesn't mention Butch's 216 records, that'd be a real dickbag thing to do

8/24/2012 7:13:52 PM

Quote :

"maybe if Obama hadn't waited like 2 years or whatever to finally release his birth certificate, Romney's joke wouldn't have even been applicable"

Are you just being stupid on purpose?

8/24/2012 7:29:02 PM

are you feigning outrage at Romney's joke or did it really get you bent out of shape?

8/24/2012 7:31:01 PM

8/24/2012 10:55:38 PM

Quote :

"Raising Estate taxes even higher? They're already ridiculously high. It's basically robbery. And raising the top tier from 35 to 45 would put a huge squeeze on small businesses, and absolutely cause hundreds of thousands of lay offs. Why would you not cut long term capital gains and encourage investors to funnel billions of dollars into companies to let them expand and hire? Or at least get rid of the repatriation tax that would allow $1-$2 Trillion of dollars to come back into the US?"

It will be starting next year. I think a 55% tax on estates is entirely reasonable. I feel absolutely ZERO responsibility to ensure people inherit money for doing nothing more than being born. I realize my opinion may not be terribly popular, but it's one of the few measures we have as a country to redistribute long term wealth from the elite back to the populace and prevent dynastic oligarchal families (though even with your so called "robbery" levels of taxation, it hasn't really had an impact on transfer of wealth and prestige from generation to generation).

1) Income tax is on individuals not corporations. It has ZERO impact on expansion, hiring or anything else.
2) There is absolutely ZERO evidence that (increasing income tax rates) will have any impact on non-corporation businesses. And if you look at the SBA (Small Business Administration), an absolutely tiny fraction of small business owners actually take home enough income to even be in the top tax bracket.

You are spouting the "job creator" bullshit farce. I already explained why it's bullshit about 4 pages ago. The guys on this page have further explained it.
3) Capital Gains: Lowering long term capital gains has NOTHING to do with hiring or expansion. Investing in a company simply raises it's cash on hand &/or market cap. Businesses expand when there is market need, not when there is capital availability. Publicly traded companies (you know, the ones where capital gains matter) aren't hurting for cash, or unable to expand or shift or hire. You don't understand how markets and business growth is spurred, it aint from capital investment.
4)Getting rid of the repatriation tax would let that 1-2 trillion back in for FREE. Which doesn't do shit for the deficit. We SHOULD tighten repatriation tax code to FORCE repatriation and TAX it. It's laughable how little tax corporations pay in the US. Most of the fortune 100 offshores the majority of their tax burden overseas. Bringing that back to the US would have a HUGE impact.

8/25/2012 12:27:46 AM

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILY FARMS!?!?!

LOL

8/25/2012 3:20:00 AM

^^ Just a quick note because I feel like a nerd right now...

Income tax is on individuals AND corporations... but that doesn't matter. Even if someone runs a non-corporation business with pass-through taxes to their income, their income is still calculated taking the cost of employment into account. So still, no impact on hiring as you said, but not just for corporations, but for all businesses.

8/25/2012 10:08:53 AM

Quote :

"romney might be a dirtbag, but you're getting mad at that comment? really?"

8/25/2012 10:14:48 AM

Yeah. There is a real reason to hate right there

8/25/2012 10:23:26 AM

8/25/2012 1:14:37 PM

Cuz that is a real issue to worry about.

People want to say Obama's policies don't work.
His policies are doing exactly what he has designed them to do.
Go see 2016 and you will see what I mean.
Amazing.

8/25/2012 1:17:15 PM

Quote :

"^^ Just a quick note because I feel like a nerd right now... Income tax is on individuals AND corporations... but that doesn't matter. Even if someone runs a non-corporation business with pass-through taxes to their income, their income is still calculated taking the cost of employment into account. So still, no impact on hiring as you said, but not just for corporations, but for all businesses. "

I'm pretty sure he knows that...
It looks like he was trying to emphasis that they were discussing individual rates and not corporate (ie raising the individual rate does not effect jobs). However I would argue that most small businesses (s-corps, partnerships, sole-props) profits flow through to their owners and are taxed at the individual level. And if an owner wants a certain net income (after tax) he will cut costs to raise profits.

[Edited on August 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : added]

8/25/2012 1:59:58 PM

^Except that's not how small business owners think or operate their businesses. So you can argue that but you would be completely wrong.

1) Small business owners rarely fall in the top tax bracket. The vast majority take VERY little income and reinvest and shelter their money in their business. Having been a small business owner several times over, having parents that are accountants for small businesses, having a number of friends and colleagues who have owned and operated their own businesses for over a decade, and most importantly having a huge statistical data bank to back up my anecdotal experience I can tell you this:

2) NO small business owner sees PERSONAL INCOME TAX as a COST to cut. There are plenty of other taxes & costs to a business that DO affect hiring: unemployment, workers comp, payroll, social security, healthcare, retirement packages et al.

3) Your entire argument is completely upside down. Why would I NOT grow my business if there's growth opportunity there? Tax is on NET income, which comes from PROFIT. If I stop growing the business, I make less money. Sure I pay less tax, but more importantly I make less money. If I grow my business, I employ more people (who now also make money) and I make more money. Sure I pay more tax, but I MAKE MORE MONEY. You don't RAISE profits in a small business by cutting employees or freezing hiring.

4) THE TWO THINGS ARE NOT CORRELATED AT ALL. Hiring an employee may reduce income and LOWER your taxes. Hiring an employee hopefully increases income and increases taxes. Firing an employee may reduce income and lower your taxes. Firing an employee may increase income and increase your taxes. See how the outcome of hire/fire can result in increase or decrease based on independent factors? No correlation, no causation even. The only correlation is that more profit == more tax.

8/25/2012 2:20:09 PM

Quote :

"According to the National Small Business Association: Small businesses comprise 99.9 percent of the 26.8 million U.S. businesses. 14.7 million are firms whose owners do not have outside employment and who have employees. 75 percent of small business reported revenues of less than $1,000,000. According to the Obama campaign, 22% of those revenues on average are taken home as profits. Therefore, if 75% of small businesses earn less than $1,000,000, 75% of small business owners would stay under the $250,000 income threshold. Of the 25 percent with revenues in excess of $1,000,000, nearly a third file taxes as a corporation and would therefore not be subject to personal income taxes, or personal income tax increases. NSBA found that 13 percent of small and mid-sized businesses have personal incomes above $150,000 annually – “a lower percentage is likely above the $250,000 threshold.”"

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/percent-of-small-businesses-earning-more-than-250000/

8/25/2012 5:29:55 PM

I was at the flea market today helping my mother in law with her booth, it amazed me how many of the vendors blame barack obama for their flea market sales slumping, they think after the election it will magically improve.

8/25/2012 6:41:15 PM

Quote :

"I was at the flea market today helping my mother in law with her booth, it amazed me how many of the vendors blame barack obama for their flea market sales slumping, they think after the election it will magically improve. "

It will! If the democrats control all 3 branches of government!

8/25/2012 6:50:33 PM

One lady selling some old ragged ass antiques and dishes was like "before, people had disposable income now they only buy the necessities, its almost put me out of business"

For a split second I wanted to explain to her that the middle classes "disposable income" during that period was all due to loose credit (equity loans, housing refi's, predatory credit cards etc), the average joe did not really have more income to spend.

Then I realized there was no point so I kept eating my popcorn.

8/25/2012 6:57:01 PM

8/25/2012 7:15:50 PM

^that's very reasonable data. I would actually say it's being very conservative in how many sb owners would even potentially fit in the top tax bracket, but it illustrates my point very well.

The "Job Creator" tagline is just utter bullshit in regard to taxation.

8/25/2012 8:55:10 PM

Quote :

"Cuz that is a real issue to worry about. People want to say Obama's policies don't work. His policies are doing exactly what he has designed them to do. Go see 2016 and you will see what I mean. Amazing."

LOL, good godalmighty

8/26/2012 3:28:20 AM

"i hate obama" About 803,000 results (0.15 seconds)


"i hate romney" About 40,100 results (0.13 seconds)

8/26/2012 3:44:45 AM

Divide that by exposure time.

8/26/2012 3:53:46 AM

Quote :

"It will be starting next year. I think a 55% tax on estates is entirely reasonable. I feel absolutely ZERO responsibility to ensure people inherit money for doing nothing more than being born."

Economically, people save for old age, or at least people who aren't poor do. It has been proposed, and it is probably correct, that people overshoot their desired retirement standard of living. That is to say, the plan to die with some amount in the bank. If people believe in the value of passing wealth onto the next generation this makes sense. If the tendency to shoot for having money in the bank at death wasn't there, we would face a national crisis of old people who don't have the resources for their care of lifestyle.

Quote :

" I realize my opinion may not be terribly popular, but it's one of the few measures we have as a country to redistribute long term wealth from the elite back to the populace and prevent dynastic oligarchal families "

Do you know what the "high beta rich" term refers to?

Quote :

"(though even with your so called "robbery" levels of taxation, it hasn't really had an impact on transfer of wealth and prestige from generation to generation)."

No, you mean to say that it hasn't fundamentally changed the fact that transfer of wealth and prestige from generation to generation exists. Aside from the fact that the above statement is just obviously and completely wrong, you would have no information to make such an assessment. Did rich kids really get just as much wealth and privilege as they would have under a different tax policy?

8/26/2012 5:50:58 PM

set em up

8/26/2012 6:37:07 PM