Taxes and the Bail Out

[leftysergeant]

Who do you bank with?

Wells Fargo. What's your point? They're all over-leveraged in an ecconomic down-turn.

 

[corplinx]

Wells Fargo. What's your point? They're all over-leveraged in an ecconomic down-turn.

My point is that most people enjoy the convenience financial services companies offer. Most of the whiners I hear about the bill that made these companies possible use the resulting companies' services. They also ignore stable conservative local banks. Even where we I work there is a good stable credit union but people opt to use banks that can also serve as a brokerage/etc. They also choose internet banks like etrade. I just started a savings account with ING Direct also.

Why are you against choice?

I get the whole "we need to made an excuse to over-regulate" leftist thing. You have to portray the crisis as a failure of government not being big enough. I understand that the Gramm bill is all you really have to back up that wild accusation. But come on. How do you look in the mirror and practice keeping the straight face on that one?

I honestly begin to doubt your voracious anti-corporate/capitalist bend here. You should be laying the wreath of fail at the feet on the corrupted congressmen who gave Mae/Mac a pass and encouraged them to keep underwriting toxic debt. Mae/Mac after all were the worst sorts of corporations to a leftist were they not? Semi-public but without the same oversight of normal corporations. Not even Sarbox.

Dawkins wrote in the God Delusion about rejecting some things as silly out of hand instead of dignifying them with debate. After this post, I am going to start waving my hand like Dogbert and saying "bah" to this Gramm-regulation nonsense. It seems like a denial cover so that leftists can hold their nose and vote for Democrats.

 

[GreyICE]

When's the last time you got a job working for a member of “the working class”? It's the “investor class” which creates companies and opportunities, which make it possible for the “working class” to even exist, to make a living.

Given that most people would define building engineers and contractors as working class, all the stinking time. And given that everyone in my company has a 401K, we're all investors.

Haven't we killed this retarded idea yet? That somehow there are those who do work and those who hire people who do work? It's such a Marxian concept. It is dead. D. E. A. D. Dead.

And we can live just fine without financial parasites who make their living panicking markets, thank you very much.

 

[Ziggurat]

One may note that every form of limited democracy has voted for things that make the enfranchised more powerful.

Not quite. The US's own history is a case in point. Enfranchisement has been enlarged over time (from landowning males only to every adult citizen), diluting the political power of those originally able to vote. You are correct to question the historical accuracy of Heinlein's point about the downward spiral of democracies, but you've essentially engaged in the same fallacy.

 

[GreyICE]

Not quite. The US's own history is a case in point. Enfranchisement has been enlarged over time (from landowning males only to every adult citizen), diluting the political power of those originally able to vote. You are correct to question the historical accuracy of Heinlein's point about the downward spiral of democracies, but you've essentially engaged in the same fallacy.

You're right, I did neglect that America expanded both Black people and women's right to vote. Oddly, things quickly got better for them (especially when they actually gave Black people the right to vote, instead of the Jim Crow right to have your vote not count).

But the people in power did indeed expand the right, even at the cost of their political careers.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why are you against choice?

Because, invariably, without governmental constraints, the moinied class make the choices that are of the greatest benefit to themselves and screw the rest of society.

I don't need a brokerage, thank you very much. And I pay cash for every car I buy. (Looks like it, too. But that's just my skinflint nature. I would rather drive a piece of crap and have money for ammo than have a shiny toy that will not get me to the rifle range in much greater comfort.)

Mae/Mac after all were the worst sorts of corporations to a leftist were they not? Semi-public but without the same oversight of normal corporations. Not even Sarbox.

Fanny and Freddy started as public corporations. Some genius decioded that they could be profitable to private capitalists and could be sold for a profit, relieving the government of one more function. BIG mistake.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fanny and Freddy started as public corporations. Some genius decioded that they could be profitable to private capitalists and could be sold for a profit, relieving the government of one more function. BIG mistake.

It was indeed a mistake. But lost in your Marxist class warfare rhetoric is any comprehension of why it was a problem. And it's not because government got out of the business of helping people get mortgages: it never stopped doing that. The reason it was a problem is because, while investors got to earn profits, government continued to carry the risk. That's a moral hazard. No surprise: when government carries the risk for investors, they act recklessly. That isn't a free market failure, that's a social engineering failure. It wasn't a class which screwed up Fannie and Fredie, it was individuals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A subsidy is when government takes, from one group, the money which they have rightfully earned, and gives it to others who have not earned it. the upper classes are the ones who are having the largest portion of their rightfully-earned wealth taken away from them, and given as subsidies to others who have done nothing to earn it.

You realise your position allows for 100% inheritance tax since people who have inhereted haven't earned it?

No, not at all. What I have condemned here is GOVERNMENT taking wealth from those who have rightfully earned it, and giving it to those who have not.

This is not, in any way, shape or form, the same thing as the one who has rightfully earned his wealth designating by his own choice what is to be done with that wealth after he has passed on and is no longer able to use it for himself.

A 100% inheritance tax would still be an instance of government taking what does not rightfully belong to it. The money belonged to the deceased, and now it rightfully belongs to whomever the deceased chose to designate to inherit it. It does not belong to the government.

 

[leftysergeant]

No one accumulates wealth without a subsidy in America. Inheritance taxes just keep them from accumulating too much from that subsidy. Without an inheritance tax, the larvae of the rich would soon own everything. Thousands of years of history demonstrate that.

 

[BenBurch]

If people CAN get rich in America it is only because they enjoy the protections of government that make that possible.

Imagine the number of heavily armed bodyguards you would need to keep you and your wealth safe if you were a multi-millionaire in a nation without police or army to defend you? What does that force cost? I'll clue you; more than you'd pay in taxes even if your rate were 70%.

 

[Wangler]

If people CAN get rich in America it is only because they enjoy the protections of government that make that possible.

Imagine the number of heavily armed bodyguards you would need to keep you and your wealth safe if you were a multi-millionaire in a nation without police or army to defend you? What does that force cost? I'll clue you; more than you'd pay in taxes even if your rate were 70%.

So now only rich people enjoy the protections of the police and army?

The cognitive processes get ever more baffling.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No one accumulates wealth without a subsidy in America. Inheritance taxes just keep them from accumulating too much from that subsidy. Without an inheritance tax, the larvae of the rich would soon own everything. Thousands of years of history demonstrate that.

Again, you're using the word “subsidy” to mean government letting people keep what they have rightfully earned, rather than taking it away from them by force and giving it to someone else who has not earned it. Your use of the word “subsidy” is the exact opposite of its correct meaning. The correct use of the word would refer to government taking money from those to whom it rightfully belongs, and giving it to others. Another word for subsidy is “theft”.

Like it or not, you are an advocate of theft and robbery.

It is among the legitimate functions of government to protect people against theft, not to perpetrate it.

If people CAN get rich in America it is only because they enjoy the protections of government that make that possible.

Imagine the number of heavily armed bodyguards you would need to keep you and your wealth safe if you were a multi-millionaire in a nation without police or army to defend you? What does that force cost? I'll clue you; more than you'd pay in taxes even if your rate were 70%.

I suppose there's some possibility that your point might have some validity, if it were the case that armies and police forces ended up devoting most of their efforts to protecting wealthy people against theft. I must admit that I don't have any hard statistics to back this up, but it seems to me that police officers spend most of their time among middle-class and lower settings, dealing with crimes that happen there; while the very wealthy depend more on security systems of their own, paid for directly our of their own pocket, than they do on the police.

And of course, armies are irrelevant entirely. Armies are for defending the nation and its interests against outside enemies. The The Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 impose very strict limitations on the use of military resources or personnel for civilian law enforcement.

 

[UserGoogol]

And of course, armies are irrelevant entirely. Armies are for defending the nation and its interests against outside enemies. The The Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 impose very strict limitations on the use of military resources or personnel for civilian law enforcement.

That idea is that without an army, (or more generally, a stable government protecting your stuff) barbarians would be at the gates taking rich people's stuff, I suppose. The richer you are, the more stuff you have to be taken, and thus the more you benefit from these basic services.

 

[leftysergeant]

Again, you're using the word “subsidy” to mean government letting people keep what they have rightfully earned, rather than taking it away from them by force and giving it to someone else who has not earned it. Your use of the word “subsidy” is the exact opposite of its correct meaning. The correct use of the word would refer to government taking money from those to whom it rightfully belongs, and giving it to others. Another word for subsidy is “theft”.

The money doesn't belong to them until they have paid their utility bills. Government is a utility. If you don't like paying for that utility. move.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, you're using the word “subsidy” to mean government letting people keep what they have rightfully earned,

He's doing far more than that. Notice how he said "accumulate" wealth, not "create" wealth. He's essentially only interested in the distribution of wealth, not its creation. It's the classic fallacy of Marxists, the guiding principle for countless failed controlled economies.

 

[leftysergeant]

He's doing far more than that. Notice how he said "accumulate" wealth, not "create" wealth.

When some dirt bag walks away from a bankrupt cpmpany with a golden parachute wjhile the pension fund goes into default has created no wealth and has actually contributed to the impoverishment of the working middle class. Hang them by their heels, shake them down, sieze their estates and sell them into slavery in some Middle Eastern back water. We don't need that kind of fool having money in this country. They hurt people with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

When some dirt bag walks away from a bankrupt cpmpany with a golden parachute wjhile the pension fund goes into default has created no wealth and has actually contributed to the impoverishment of the working middle class.

When that happens, the dirtbag in question shafts the investor class too. And there's also quite a bit of overlap between investors and laborers. What do you think pension funds are, piles of cash?

 

[leftysergeant]

Stop with the snivelling about workers being part of the investor class. The workers are creating the wealth. They are entitled to the first share of the pie when creditors with a prior claim are satisfied. The people who screwed up the company are not entitled to anything until the workers have recieved what they bargained for, including their pensions. The wealth in investments in the hands of working people is piddling, compared to what is in the hands of those who make their money primarily through investing.

 

[UserGoogol]

Economic slowdown, less tax revenue collected, new government spending...... and both candidates are still pledging to lower taxes.

Bringing my attention back to the original point, isn't it basic Keynesianism that when the economy goes into a recession the government should engage deficit spending to counteract that? Admittedly we're stuck in an "all deficit spending all the time" mode which is certainly not ideal, but raising taxes and decreasing spending seems like it would be a rather bad idea.

 

[leftysergeant]

Admittedly we're stuck in an "all deficit spending all the time" mode which is certainly not ideal, but raising taxes and decreasing spending seems like it would be a rather bad idea.

Deficit spending and tax increases on the upper-level incomes to rebuild our industrial infrastructure is not a bad course to take. Say we raise taxes to fund the creation of a wind mill industry that lowers eneregy costs for the middle class, who then have a little more to spend at local businesses. The people at the top who have had their taxes raised are still going to come out a little better off, but there would, eventually, be more wealth coming into the country and circulating through more hands.

Cut the taxes at the top, cut back on government services, and, eventually, you have a few super-rich and a bunch of peons who will put up with just about anything to get a crumb or two.

We have already seen what borrow and spend on stuff that does not build infrastructure does to a country. Don't want to go there again.