OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom


And you might wish to consider what folks like Carnegie did with their money -
while they certainly gave a lot away, they sure didn't leave the kids,
grandkids, etc. eating out of dumpsters - do some quick research into Bessemer
Trust (the Phipps family), the various Rockefeller trusts, the Kennedy stuff,
etc.

NB - the reason I suggested others was that Carnegie only had one child, a
daughter, who was made trustee of the primary trust he set up - even with a 90%
scheme, there would have been little "inheritance" to tax, yet his only heir
could have still lived like, well, someone who had just inherited the bulk of
Carnegie's estate.

R

On 9/30/2010 8:04 PM, wrote:

While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

also, the 91% was only over the threshold, and as you point out there
were loopholes(not that there aren't now). Still, look at it this way:
when something like that is in place, the emphasis on the quick killing
(a la hedge fund and other money 'managers') for the massive annual
income is lessened. Loopholes or not, if you report an income of, say,
800 million, I'll bet a few hundred don't get loopholed out of the
amount in the 91% bracket. Suddenly, long-term capital gains look like
wise things to aim for, and folks start planning long term strategies,
which benefit the nation. That is precisely the economic model that was
in effect in the 50's and 60's. Then the 'business management' types
took over, looked for easy, fast profits, and we all suffer, to some extent.
On the other hand, your example of France taxing everyone is only
pertinent insofar as France provides social benefits to all that are
unheard of in this nation. Whether that model is sustainable can be
debated, but despite some Eurozone issues, the Scandanavian societies
seem to pull it off without too much effort.

Tom

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:49:49 -0400, D. LaCourse wrote:

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary.

Um, well, no, it is not "necessary" - first, many do not, and will not, pay any
taxes (and some will still get "credit(s)" on top of that, IIRC), so one cannot
"cut" taxes that aren't paid. Second, at some level, folks could pay the extra
5% and really not notice it, insofar as "lifestyle" is concerned. To use the
extreme example, Gates and Buffett - if they were suddenly taxed 5% _of their
net worth_, rather than "taxable income," they'd still see no change in their
lifestyle (hell, they both see such swings in their net worth regularly).

But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

250K a year is not "rich" anywhere on the planet, but that's not, pardon the
pun, material. OTOH, it is pretty darned comfortable just about anywhere, and
in many areas, when compared to the lowest earners, it is income beyond
comprehension. But so what? Taxation should be fair to all, and _no one_
should be able to avoid _income_ tax (by necessity, one must have income to be
taxed on it, so those that honestly cannot work would owe no tax).

HTH,
R

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:16:14 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

On 9/30/2010 8:04 PM, wrote:

While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

also, the 91% was only over the threshold, and as you point out there
were loopholes(not that there aren't now). Still, look at it this way:
when something like that is in place, the emphasis on the quick killing
(a la hedge fund and other money 'managers') for the massive annual
income is lessened. Loopholes or not, if you report an income of, say,
800 million, I'll bet a few hundred don't get loopholed out of the
amount in the 91% bracket.

Anyone who has the slightest interest in "earning" 800 million as individual
income in a year, be it today, yesterday, or in the 50s likely isn't going to
care about tax brackets. And AFAIK, there aren't a whole lot of folks in that
category, anyway. IAC, you couldn't run fast enough to give me 800 million a
year - I don't need it and don't want the headaches (and probable heartaches) it
would bring. That's one of things I don't understand about Buffett - people go
on and on about what a great guy he is because he's giving away billions. Um,
well, yeah, but he's keeping a few, too. What "normal" person would even want
(and by that, I mean have the desire to personally strive to acquire it) a
single billion? If one has even one billion in readily-convertible "cash," it
could be very conservatively invested and produce an annual income of 50-100 mil
a year. WTF could a sensible, rational person do with even that income? If
he's so wonderful, why didn't he take less (personal) profit all along and
"share the wealth" all along, or, give much of it to charity all along? Granted,
there are a few out there that, from a single source, wound up in a situation
where they literally can't give it away fast enough (ala many of the Walton
family and to a limited extent, Gates), but these little ****asses like
what-his-nuts from Facebook, etc., there's got to be something seriously wrong
with their makeup, at least IMO. But that said, I still don't think that they
ought to carry a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Suddenly, long-term capital gains look like
wise things to aim for, and folks start planning long term strategies,
which benefit the nation. That is precisely the economic model that was
in effect in the 50's and 60's. Then the 'business management' types
took over, looked for easy, fast profits, and we all suffer, to some extent.
On the other hand, your example of France taxing everyone is only
pertinent insofar as France provides social benefits to all that are
unheard of in this nation. Whether that model is sustainable can be
debated, but despite some Eurozone issues,

the Scandanavian societies seem to pull it off without too much effort.

WHAT? First of all, you're taking about countries that wouldn't even rank in
the top five, population-wise, of US states (and I'm not sure that even Sweden
would be in the top 10 - I know Denmark and Norway wouldn't be, and depending on
your definition of "Scandinavia," Iceland has a population you could in fit into
a smallish Holiday Inn...and it managed to bankrupt itself). In fact, I don't
think the population all of "Scandinavia," even including all potential
countries that could be included, would even equal CA, TX, or NY. Not that a
smaller population is a bad thing - in fact, it can be a great thing. Plus,
those populations are about as homogeneous and "native" as they come - there
are, what, 27 "foreigners" in all of Scandinavia, whatever countries you include
out of the possibles (and yeah, I know, that's not literal, but still...).

IAC, pick your medicine - the taxes in Denmark are, IIRC, the highest in the
world - the gov takes something like 99 cents of the first dollar and then gets
out the shears to cut your share from the remaining "penny." ****, you'd have
rioting in the streets if you suddenly tried to tax those in the US ala Denmark.
Norway has more oil than 17 Arab sheiks and have the population of about N.
Dakota (again, yes, hyperbole, but still...). And yet, they have still had
their share of "entitlement"-related woes, as has Sweden. The simple fact of
the matter is that the idea of "the Scandinavian (and/or "Nordic") Model" is
largely myth, esp. outside of "Scandinavia," but it hasn't been completely shown
as such in "common knowledge" because it hasn't completely failed _yet_. If you
want to see an epic failure, try to apply it to the US. Oh, true enough, if,
say, Vermont suddenly seceded, it might work for a few years there, but in the
entirety of the US (or the Eurozone, etc.)? No way, no how. And the even
simpler fact is that some socio-capitalist "Utopia" cannot exist, long-term,
because it would be populated with people.

TC,
R

Tom

[this'll be my last post, so feel free to have the last word...]

On Sep 30, 5:51*pm, wrote:

I don't agree with them, and certainly not to the point that the majority pay
little or no taxes. *

Depends on what "the majority" makes. Our middle class is
disappearing, and it's hard to wring much out of a turnip. Meanwhile:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8033845016.htm

Bring back policies where "the majority" will be a true "middle class"
and I'll be happy to tax them.

again, at what point does your
sympathy begin? *At what income level should "business owners" by taxed 40% on
their personal income? *And what about wage-earners? *If someone earns 25K, why
shouldn't they be taxed just like someone who make earns 250K? *

Because we don't live in Pakistan and the way our society is
structured it takes 25K to "just live". I've no idea what the "right"
levels are and don't have the time or interest to figure them out, I
just know that I'm happy to see those that have benefited more from
the social and legal and physical and governmental structures that are
in place that allow them to succeed pay their share, and I believe
that share should be somehow progressive. No one is "self-made" in the
absence of all the societal structures that are maintained to enable
it.

Let me ask you this: *if I let you set my tax rate, would you let me set yours?
Would you let me set yours after you set mine? *You know, sorta like the old
deal about sharing - one person cuts the sandwich, the other gets to pick their
portion first.

That implies that you and I are somehow "equals" on the financial
playing field, which I doubt. How about we lay out how much wealth all
the people in the nation hold at our respective class levels and then
divide our tax responsibility in proportion to the accumulated wealth
at our levels? I'd say that's fair.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Note on that data the difference between wealth and income
distribution, which in part explains why a flat income tax is
_regressive_ when it comes to wealth (and the corresponding impact on
families). If we aren't going to tax wealth accumulation, then I'm in
favor of a progressive income tax that mirrors the wealth curve.

Take care,

Jon.

On Sep 30, 5:57*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

*So, I started from scratch

Care to share in what industries you made your money?

I'd bet if we unwrapped it you'd find that much of what you made and
how much you made came fairly directly from government spending, which
in turn came from debt accumulation. In other words, how much you made
is a direct factor of what our government was willing to borrow and
spend, not some magical intrinsic value of your work ethic and
capabilities. Lot's of people work very hard around the globe and
don't accumulate anything, and it's not their fault.

Take care,

Jon.

On Sep 29, 5:24*pm, jeff wrote:
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...small-business...

Once again you demonstrate (like yet another exhibition was
necessary.....right?) an uncanny knack for bring forth a multitude of
uncoerced (one hesitates to say "unsolicited") confessions of abject
stupidity.

That kind of thing can't be learned.

I stand in awe.

giles

On 2010-10-01 10:15:58 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 5:57*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

*So, I started from scratch

Care to share in what industries you made your money?

I'd bet if we unwrapped it you'd find that much of what you made and
how much you made came fairly directly from government spending, which
in turn came from debt accumulation. In other words, how much you made
is a direct factor of what our government was willing to borrow and
spend, not some magical intrinsic value of your work ethic and
capabilities. Lot's of people work very hard around the globe and
don't accumulate anything, and it's not their fault.

Take care,

Jon.

No, it certainly isn't their fault. I see it every day I work at the
food pantry. Most are cronic poor - they haven't worked in many years.
Many are working poor - they have no skills and work for minimum wage.
And then we have the newly poor - the ones who have recently lost
their jobs. They are the most pitiful, the most angry.

I made my money by investing starting with $50/month in 1960. My
paychecks for 20 years were from the government (U.S. Navy), and when I
retired I receive 50% of my base pay. Still do. Along with SS. And,
of course, my investments and pension from GTE.

I have been in many poor countries, Jon, especially in Central and
South America. While stationed in the Azores, my wife and I had a maid
and we paid her $20/week (4/day). *That* was the going wage for maids.
We upped her pay by 25% to $25/week, and I was called into the
Captain's office to explain this increase. It seems that *all* maids
were paid $20/week, and that I was inflating the salary structure,
i.e., paying her the salary that a laborer would make. So, we went
back to $20/week and let her choose something each month out of the
Sears catalog (up to $20). She was the best dressed maid in the
Azores. d;o)

BTW, we went to her house one night for dinner. She lived with her
aunt and they lived fairly well on their their maid salaries. I know,
I know, it seems like exploitation, but it really wasn't. It was what
the market would bear.

Be well, Jon.

Dave

On 10/1/2010 7:14 PM, Giles wrote:
On Sep 29, 5:24 pm, wrote:
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...small-business...

Once again you demonstrate (like yet another exhibition was
necessary.....right?) an uncanny knack for bring forth a multitude of
uncoerced (one hesitates to say "unsolicited") confessions of abject
stupidity.

That kind of thing can't be learned.

I stand in awe.

giles

'tweren't nuthin... as we are want to say in the south...

jeff

On Oct 1, 9:15*am, Jonathan Cook wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:57*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

*So, I started from scratch

Care to share in what industries you made your money?

I'd bet if we unwrapped it you'd find that much of what you made and
how much you made came fairly directly from government spending, which
in turn came from debt accumulation. In other words, how much you made
is a direct factor of what our government was willing to borrow and
spend, not some magical intrinsic value of your work ethic and
capabilities. Lot's of people work very hard around the globe and
don't accumulate anything, and it's not their fault.

Take care,

Jon.

Working hard, by itself, garners little.

Working smart, however, has rewards.

cheers

oz, who realizes that days spent building a snowman results
in ........... a snowman