Topic: Free money

[BeSeeingYou]

The "haves" earned their money by not being stupid, irresponsible, and taking financial risk with their money. Begrudge them if you wish, but it shows your ignorance of economics. It's not secret science, it's simple math.

As for a Middle Class under siege; yes they are. All due to failed political and economic policies of funding waste, fraud and legislative folly. Both parties in our country are culpable. Politicians are inherently poor leaders as they are susceptible to coercion and self-interests.

The "haves, 1%ers, etc" have earned their money buy not paying for the value created by the people that work for them.  The workers are the one who create the value and are not fairly compensated for it.  Or you have folks like Mitt Romney who manipulate the financial system and through wealth rig the rules even more in their favor.  They create nothing but are complete parasites.  That is why the middle class is under siege.  It's not because of some government bogeyman.

[Retro Rocket]

The "haves" earned their money by not being stupid, irresponsible, and taking financial risk with their money. Begrudge them if you wish, but it shows your ignorance of economics. It's not secret science, it's simple math.

As for a Middle Class under siege; yes they are. All due to failed political and economic policies of funding waste, fraud and legislative folly. Both parties in our country are culpable. Politicians are inherently poor leaders as they are susceptible to coercion and self-interests.

The "haves, 1%ers, etc" have earned their money buy not paying for the value created by the people that work for them.  The workers are the one who create the value and are not fairly compensated for it.  Or you have folks like Mitt Romney who manipulate the financial system and through wealth rig the rules even more in their favor.  They create nothing but are complete parasites.  That is why the middle class is under siege.  It's not because of some government bogeyman.

Not to mention that its a cycle too, a lot of the current "extremely wealthy" have inherited the money and really didn't do much at all to earn it, I find the ignorant ones are the ones that blindly follow the above mantra of

"The "haves" earned their money by not being stupid, irresponsible, and taking financial risk with their money, Begrudge them if you wish, but it shows your ignorance of economics"

  , the rich just love them, usually, the financial risks they take are with other peoples money.. I laughed out loud when this guy called me the ignorant one....

[nccb]

I want 3 day work weeks and everything to close on holidays and sunday except those institutions that sell beer or save lives. . .

I hope this is what you guys were discussing.  As soon as I saw economics, Mitt Romney, rich, and the preaching of American history my eyes glazed over, my brain melted out through my ears, and my right hand picked up and ink pen and tried to stab it through my eye before my left hand stopped it.

[calj737]

Retro/Srust - you miss my point. And perhaps, Retro I owe you a bit of an apology for the personal attack much earlier in the thread. Wrong of me, and I do apologize.

My point is this: while I too am a Middle class citizen, but not a "creator, laborer or producer of anything tangible" I have a unique opportunity to bei nvolved personally, and professionally with some true 1%'ers. What I tell you about risk, strategy and investment is very true for many. Certainly not all, but many self-made people.

And yes, I agree, that the employees of these companies do NOT earn a proportional income to the executives. But that is due to the level of responsibility, not intelligence or integrity. As employees, we have limited exposure and regrettably, limited value. We can be replaced by machines, or other people quite quickly. Stand on an assembly line, turn a wrench, dig a ditch, it's all considered commodity labor. And those jobs are often susceptible to being "off-shored" or eliminated without harm to the corporate bottom line. But that is the law.

All these companies (at least those that are publicly traded) have a legal obligation to maximize profit. If they elect to do otherwise, they are in violation of SEC rules governing their diligence. Now, if you are at odds with their practice as a consumer, don't buy their products. If as an employee, you disagree with their culture, don't work there. These are your freedoms and your choices. When unions get involved, the company and the employees suffer the ultimate impasse and those jobs go over seas, companies go bankrupt, etc. Look at the auto industry, electronics, textiles, furniture...

It's not the fault of the corporations, it's their response to legislation that causes these behaviors.the legislative burden to fund programs that don't SOLVE problems is why their is a great political  and cultural divide in this country (USA). It's not the erosion of people's concern of their fellow man. That is the voice of frustration from those who work paying for those who don't. And the endless cycle of "more, more, more" coming from liberals and progressives who believe throwing more money AT&T he same problem will yield different results.

From me, I do care about my neighbors, regardless of their race or ideology. That matters not to me. What I resent, is political garbage that self indulges at the expense of citizens all in the name of "social concern". But the core problem is not corporate greed, it's political corruption and narcissism.

I live by simple rules; abide the law, do unto others..., and don't tread on me. And in turn, I won't tread on you, even when I disagree with your perspective. I will (haven't done so well here) remain respectful of our dissent but endeavor not to create discord over it.

Hope that helps explain my postings better. We may still be worlds apart, but at least you may understand my impetus better.

Cheers-

[Bob Wessner]

Cal, it would seem you may have overstated the SEC position. The regs do require corporate officers to do their best in the interests of the corpoaration and in doing so likely leads to increased profits to shareholders. However I don't believe SEC regs specifically speak to a "requirement " to maximize profits.

It's not uncommon for corporate officers to have to make decisions that are clearly detrimental to current or near-term profits to insure the future survival of the corporation. Again, doing their best is the requirement.

[kmb69]

I'm interested in finding out which ("First World"?) countries middle class are worse off than America's poor?

[calj737]

Bob - thanks for making the distinction. I stand corrected for my use of the words. My meaning was the intention, but appreciate your clarification.

Did not intend to misrepresent the reqs.

Cheers-

[BeSeeingYou]

As for greedy F pigs, here in the US, 10% of the population pays more than 50% of all tax revenue collected. How is that greed? Over 50% of the population in per capita scale does not contribute $0.01 tot he collected revenue, and yet, they receive 80% of all Federal Assistance. Without those "Greedy pigs" 50% of the US population would starve or die.

This is one of those statements that always get repeated in these type of discussions about how much the wealthy pay.  What is always left out is that the top 10% own 80% of the wealth....so why is it unfair that they pay only 50% of the taxes?   The unfairness seems to be that they are not taxed enough.  It is true that at certain income levels a percentage of the population pays little or no federal income taxes which is what these stats are often based on.  What is not included are state, local, payroll taxes, etc that these lower income earners do pay so it skews the stats even more in favor of the top wage earners because they often don't pay some of these taxes depending how their pay structure is set up.  What I find hard to understand is what I assume are middle class folks defending the  wealthy paying a lower tax rate than someone in the middle class.  Mitt Romney's 14% vs. my 15%.   We keep hearing about the 1%ers are the "job creators" and we can't tax them ...it's just total bullsh!t.  The job creators are the middle class  and putting more money into their hands by higher wages and lower taxes creates demand for goods and services because they spend a high % of what they earn.  Without demand there are no job creators.  Welfare and unemployment are also good things if administered properly with a minimum of fraud and abuse.   The money gets spent on goods and services especially during economic downturns...it's pure economic stimulus.   It works the same way with lower wage earners paying low or no income tax...they are already spending all they earn so it's little benefit to the economy to take a chunk for taxes.  Plus they are paying other taxes like I said earlier so it's not a free ride.  The 1%ers seem to have so much money that it gets stashed in offshore band accounts, so much that Wall Street has to come up with wild and crazy ways to invest it, etc.  I would say what needs to happen is the rates for the top income earners go back to the 70% rates we had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.  The "job creators" didn't have any trouble back then keeping the economy humming.  It didn't keep people from starting or expanding businesses.  The money could be used to fix the failing infrastructure of this country for one thing.....think of the jobs that would create.

[Grnrngr]

There is an island called Anuta. Google it, and consider a whole different way of thinking about life for a few minutes.

[calj737]

Srust - We will just agree to disagree. Our facts don't agree with each other, nor does our respective logic.

What I find disheartening (no, its not that "everyone" doesn't think the way I do) is that our society, and perhaps much of the world, has become so polarized that we can no longer have conversations without animosity. Tragic that enlightened people can't discuss things without all the acrimony. I guess it is the mutual frustrations that we all feel about the direction of our respective countries, despite our individual efforts having any effect.

That, really gets my blood pressure up!

[kmb69]

Portions ..... omitted from the following quote:

.....
1. What I find hard to understand is what I assume are middle class folks defending the wealthy paying a lower tax rate than someone in the middle class. Mitt Romney's 14% vs. my 15%.
.....
2. Welfare and unemployment are also good things if administered properly with a minimum of fraud and abuse. The money gets spent on goods and services especially during economic downturns...it's pure economic stimulus.
.....
3. The money could be used to fix the failing infrastructure of this country for one thing.....think of the jobs that would create.

1. I am no Romney fan but get the facts straight. Romney's 2011 Tax Return is published all over the internet.
Taxable Income $15,205,496.
Taxes  $ 3,226,623.     21.2%
Charity $ 4,020,572.     26.4%

Did you give 26% of whatever your taxable income is to charitable causes? I did not.

2. You are making an erroneous assumption that the folks the money was confiscated from would not have spent it on similar stuff.

3. We recently spent $787 BILLION of "stimulus" money on "shovel ready jobs" supposedly employing 3.5 million. The President admitted in a TV interview, in October, 2010, "they never existed."

Where did that money go?


OXFAM.ORG reported this week that the wealth of the richest 85 people in the world equaled the wealth of half of the worlds population.
Top 85   $1,692,307,692,308.
World Population 7,206,206,694
1/2 of Population 3,603,103,347
If we took it all (100%) and distributed it equally to 1/2 of the worlds population, each would receive $469.68.

Then what?

I love rich people! They spend lots of money on all kinds of stuff that creates demand and subsequently JOBS!

[kmb69]

Bar Room Economics 101

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our 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 any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[seanbarney41]

oh boy, that is really hitting close to home considering it appears that tenth guy has been drinking his beer overseas for quite some time now...I sure have not seen him around

[kmb69]

Our tax policy sent him there. Tax him less and he will come home!

[JeffSTL]

Cute bar story but it doesn't equate to the real world. It's all about spendable income. Let's say it costs $10k to stay alive. If you make $10k and are taxed 20% you are left with $8k and can no longer survive. If you make $100k and taxed the same you are left with $70k more than it takes to stay alive. If you make $20million and taxed the same, you still have $15,990,000 left to live on. So, all taxed at the same rate, the rich guy is still rich and the poor guy is dead(without some sort of assistance)

The real sad part is that in reality the rich guy is paying a lower rate than that and the guy in the middle is paying a higher rate. One of the many benifits of being filthy rich is that you have so much spendable income you can afford to buy legislation that benifits you.

Sorry kmb69,
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
His effective tax rate was up slightly from the 13.9% rate he paid in 2010.
He "earned" this income despite not having a job. Remember how he used to make those hilarious jokes about being unemployed while out on the campaign trail?

Also kmb69, I know you are a fan of quotes so here's one:
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln

[calj737]

JeffSTL - I'll do my best to not sound snipe-ish, but your position and citation of tax rates is absent of a few critical points. But, I do agree Federal Income tax in this country is BS.

With respect to someone like Romney, who has significant welsh, in that tax year, while not earning income from a "job" per se, all that taxable income was from INTEREST INCOME! That's why his effective rate was so low, not because he didn't pay his fair share. He had already paid income tax on the principal, and was paying AGAIN (albeit at a lower rate than regular income) MORE tax on his money. Don't you see the aggravation with this?

Let's put yourself in this position; you'd be livid as you are currently aggravated about paying even similar or more tax than these wealthy people. I have never heard anyone indicate that Welfare or other Social programs don't need to exist; they do. But they need to be better managed, have incentives to ween the population from them as rapidly as possible, and that needs to happen NOW.

The original article cited a new idea about giving cash in lieu of "life support services". Hey, I don't care how it gets to them, as long as there is an end to it (unless there are permanent disabilities) and that it's coupled with requirements that the recipient be involved in getting out of their predicament.

I'll take a leap here and cite a major consternation for most fiscal conservatives: despite their individual effort, they have become minority partners in participating in their own income. They government, state, local, federal, take more than 50% of their income simply because they earn a great deal of money. That's whacked!

Citing Mr Lincoln, labor may be superior to capital, and that's our point. These people should have to WORK for their money. At least do something!?!? You may view the business folks who are "executives" that earn more than the line laborer with derision, and that's okay. But it sounds to be envy and resentment for their success.

Labor alone cannot sustain economies without Goods and Capital. So without Capital, how do Goods get produced? Someone must have the Capital to invest into raw materials to manufacture consumer Goods. It's a trinity with no part more, or less important than another.

But in the end, I am with you, we NEED to eliminate the IRS and let each person have their money back to spend, invest and save as they wish. It will save everyone money, free up the economy, and shrink the Government. I'm in! Then I can tithe more of my income tot he charities I choose that actually help people, not enslave them.

We all want the same thing, we just disagree with the path to get there.

[kmb69]

+100 calj737 - Romney's earnings were already taxed previously as ordinary income. Returns in question were mostly Capital Gains.

How did the country grow so well from 1776 to 1913 without an Income Tax?

Oh, the politicians (all parties) realized they could buy votes with "free money" or favored friends with exemptions! An Income Tax invites corruption.

US Companies are moving overseas because the US is second only to the UAE (55%) for the HIGHEST Corporate Income Tax at 40%.

Global average is 24.08% with some, such as the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, and Bahrain, at 0%. Guess where they are moving?

The Canadians, who are frequently praised, LOWERED their Corporate Income Tax from 2006 at 36.1% to 2013 at 26%. It's WORKING!

Ultimately, the Fair Tax proposal fixes the problem. It taxes consumption instead of production and those below a certain income pay no tax.

[kmb69]

.....
1. The real sad part is that in reality the rich guy is paying a lower rate than that and the guy in the middle is paying a higher rate. One of the many benifits of being filthy rich is that you have so much spendable income you can afford to buy legislation that benifits you.
.....
2. Also kmb69, I know you are a fan of quotes so here's one:
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

1. Exactly! Stop the corruption! Get rid of the disparate and unequal Income Tax "laws"!

2. Yeah, Old Abe was a real philosophical and economic genius, wasn't he?

[JeffSTL]

Ugggh. Consumption taxes harm those who have less the most. If you earn less money you are not likely to be able to save and invest and therefore you would be taxed on everything you earn. A wealthy person would only be taxed on a small portion of their earnings.

It's quite clear that we agree on little, even about what the end result should be. This conversation, like most of these, is pointless. It's clear that there will likely be little if any meaningful change to the system, because the wealthy (whom are in the financial position to change the laws and have already stacked the books in their favor) are not going to agree to anything that could possibly adversely affect them. Why do you think the tax code is so huge and such a mess? Because wealthy people and corporations have carved out thousands of loopholes to avoid taxes.

The only reason this conversation started was because some had an adverse reaction to the idea that maybe giving impoverished people money and giving them a choice on how to spend it might be a good thing.

I'm out.

[calj737]

Sorry to see you go, Jeff. That was my point earlier, that frustrations lead us to stop discussion because we can't agree.

I'd offer you this, the difference isn't where we end up, is how we get there or the root causes of the problem. I'd rather attempt to solve the problem, to liberate everyone, than continue treating the disease.

People characterize wealthy and corporate mechanisms as "rigging" the system. Instead, I think they are taking every advantage of a system that is flawed, but doing so legally. Let's fix the system and these loopholes cease to exist.

I never hear anyone complain about the lifetime salary and benefits paid to elected a Congress or a Cabinet appointees while dealing with these issues. Talk about hypocrisy, to listen to wealthy Senators attempt to "guilt" me into paying more taxes to aide people THEY are defrauding makes me vomit. Do the math, LIFETIME salaries for every senator that's served. Even if it's a single two year term (Clinton and O'Bama) as recent examples. No, they are not the only ones, I'm just referencing specific examples.

Add to that, both of them also receive a LIFETIME benefit for their Sec State and Pres positions. Sounds like double-bubble to me. And who pays this? That's right, the tax payers. Give me a break!!!!!!

I get it, you're passionate about the middle man. I am too. It's just that I look at the fraud and abuse inflicted upon us and seek the greatest abuse of our money. And the greatest infringement on our rights. That's what works me up.

[kmb69]

1. Ugggh. Consumption taxes harm those who have less the most. If you earn less money you are not likely to be able to save and invest and therefore you would be taxed on everything you earn. A wealthy person would only be taxed on a small portion of their earnings.

2. It's quite clear that we agree on little, even about what the end result should be. This conversation, like most of these, is pointless. It's clear that there will likely be little if any meaningful change to the system, because the wealthy (whom are in the financial position to change the laws and have already stacked the books in their favor) are not going to agree to anything that could possibly adversely affect them. Why do you think the tax code is so huge and such a mess? Because wealthy people and corporations have carved out thousands of loopholes to avoid taxes.

3. The only reason this conversation started was because some had an adverse reaction to the idea that maybe giving impoverished people money and giving them a choice on how to spend it might be a good thing.

I'm out.

1. The Fair Tax would create an unprecedented economic boom! Companies would come back in droves. All that wanted to work could! Wages would increase due to the demand for labor.

2. If one doesn't think he/she can, he/she are pretty much guaranteed failure. A matter of perspective - is the glass half full or half empty? I choose to think we can!

3. I have not heard anyone blaming poor people. It's not their fault the system is corrupt except they are most gullible to keep voting for more of the same mainly encouraged by political election "promises" that are mostly lies whether intended or not.

We should all feel obligated to help the truly indigent and the Fair Tax does not end welfare. It attempts to stop the "gamers" and the "corrupt".

[JeffSTL]

1. The Fair Tax would create an unprecedented economic boom! Companies would come back in droves. All that wanted to work could! Wages would increase due to the demand for labor.

HaHaHaHa!
You are aware that corporate profits are at an all time high and corporate taxes as a percent of profits are at historic lows, right? They are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. Literally. What are they waiting for?

[JeffSTL]

Calh737,

Damn it! I said I was out!
Thank you for your civil tone and I guess we can agree that money needs to be taken out of politics.
My point about this being pointless wasn't so much about our conversation as it was that I just think things aren't going to change.

Good day and good luck.
I'm out for real.

[Bob Wessner]

I never hear anyone complain about the lifetime salary and benefits paid to elected a Congress or a Cabinet appointees while dealing with these issues.... even if it's a single term

Might be because it is not true. You might want to do a little more research.   

[kmb69]

HaHaHaHa!
You are aware that corporate profits are at an all time high and corporate taxes as a percent of profits are at historic lows, right? They are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. Literally. What are they waiting for?

Good question. Glad to see you back by the way. They have also paid the highest taxes ever! Should be increasing wages as well, IMHO.

Many are still waiting to discover the unintended (or otherwise) consequences of the ACA since most of their participation has been deferred till later this year. They have an obligation to protect shareholder value. If you have a 401k, that might include you.

A good non-political read: http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6#