|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 12, 2011 10:25:51 GMT -8
No comparing The Great Depression to our current situation. Currently we saw the market drop from 14000 to 7500 more or less. Now it is back to just over 12000 in about two years. The Depression saw the market go from 381 to 41. A drop of a much greater magnitude. It took over 20 years to get back to where it was. Big difference from now. In my opinion one of the reason why it is different now is that the government was able to intervene and prevent a total meltdown. I suspect you are against the government having that sort of power. Be happy it did. Good points, but I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion. All the mechanisms put in place by the feds as a reaction to the Depression did not prevent the crash of '08. The trouble with government solutions to free market problems is that they frequently do not really solve the problems while at the same time they introduce new problems into the system. Those on the Left really do believe that they, unlike others in the past who attempted to perfect the system, somehow have the answers that their predecessors lacked. Pride and hubris, that's what it is. As long as you give the govt. great power, there will be those who will abuse that power. Why? Simple. It's nicely encapsulated in the answer given by Willy "The Actor" Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." he said. The more power to control the economy is put under the control of the government, the more temptation there will be more abuse of the system. That, plus the inevitable unforeseen consequences that are contained in laws written by people whose self-evaluation far exceeds their actual competence. Let's stop believing that we can bring about Utopia. The Fabian socialists of the late 19th Century were sure that they could do just that. Very, very naive chaps, those! AzWm PS: For the record, the DOW did not rise to the pre Oct., 1929 level until 1954, a period of time in which the Democrats controlled the federal government all but five or six years. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 12, 2011 11:04:29 GMT -8
No comparing The Great Depression to our current situation. Currently we saw the market drop from 14000 to 7500 more or less. Now it is back to just over 12000 in about two years. The Depression saw the market go from 381 to 41. A drop of a much greater magnitude. It took over 20 years to get back to where it was. Big difference from now. In my opinion one of the reason why it is different now is that the government was able to intervene and prevent a total meltdown. I suspect you are against the government having that sort of power. Be happy it did. Good points, but I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion. All the mechanisms put in place by the feds as a reaction to the Depression did not prevent the crash of '08. The trouble with government solutions to free market problems is that they frequently do not really solve the problems while at the same time they introduce new problems into the system. Those on the Left really do believe that they, unlike others in the past who attempted to perfect the system, somehow have the answers that their predecessors lacked. Pride and hubris, that's what it is. As long as you give the govt. great power, there will be those who will abuse that power. Why? Simple. It's nicely encapsulated in the answer given by Willy "The Actor" Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." he said. The more power to control the economy is put under the control of the government, the more temptation there will be more abuse of the system. That, plus the inevitable unforeseen consequences that are contained in laws written by people whose self-evaluation far exceeds their actual competence. Let's stop believing that we can bring about Utopia. The Fabian socialists of the late 19th Century were sure that they could do just that. Very, very naive chaps, those! AzWm PS: For the record, the DOW did not rise to the pre Oct., 1929 level until 1954, a period of time in which the Democrats controlled the federal government all but five or six years. The problem, William, is that the mechanisms put in place by FDR slowly were done away with over the last thirty years or so. Deregulation became the answer to everything. Let the markets be free and everything would work out by itself. Take the Glass-Steagal Act. It seperated out the financial businesses so that if you were an insurance company that was it, if you were a stockbroker that was all you did, if you were a bank that is all you did. I don't know if anyone here took Dr. Fishers's finance class. He explained it succinctly. He said that back in the 1920s were discovered that when bankers and brokers sleep together their clients get screwed. All the folks that remembered that wisdom were pretty much gone by the when the deregulation of the economy became the rage. Remember how with were going to have financial supermarkets, cross selling to your client base was going make everyone rich. Not the clients, of course, but the brokers and bankers. What you need, William, is to stop believing that free markets will bring about utopia. They won't. People will lie, cheat, and steal if they think they can get away with it. That is why we have laws, William. We let the laws get weak and we paid the price. I am glad we it happened in 2008 and not a generation from now. If our propensity for letting getting rid of rules for the market would have continued apace we could have had another great depression. I really hope that we have learned a lesson. But I am not sanguine. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 12, 2011 11:10:50 GMT -8
70? Did you actually look at the graph of the DJIA back for the 1920s and 1930s? What is wrong with a consumption tax is that it hurts the retirees, poor and just the people you think who it would save. What is wrong is the governments will eagerly implement another sales tax. California brought us the Use tax in 1935 during the Great Depression like the FICA which was implemented in 1937--both killing jobs during the Great Depression. Only the housing market after the war got us booming and the government has been priming and halting the housing market ever since to raise local tax revenues. What is wrong with another sales tax at the national level is that the governments will not remove any other tax whatsoever. They only add to spending and taxes, and never, never eliminate taxes and spending. Remember the skyrocketing oil prices under Jimmy the Geek Carter? What'd did the Federal government do to "help"? You got it, implement a special tax on oil to the oil companies. Heck whenever Exxon Mobil announces a 23 billion dollar quarter, you have to think, 15 billion of that goes to the governments, or else you're a bias, lazy-brainer... HAM Did I look at a chart? Of course, I did. I am not the one advocating for a national sales tax. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 12, 2011 11:12:40 GMT -8
Are we getting a little off track here? I don't see that big of a difference in what you two are saying in reality. What we need is reasonable regulation with eagle eyed attention to what is happening.
Some of what needs to be done is a huge overhaul of the tax code toward simple and regressive policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 12, 2011 13:01:23 GMT -8
Are we getting a little off track here? I don't see that big of a difference in what you two are saying in reality. What we need is reasonable regulation with eagle eyed attention to what is happening. Some of what needs to be done is a huge overhaul of the tax code toward simple and regressive policy. The concept in-elasticity of demand above a certain consumption level just escapes you, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 12, 2011 13:04:24 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes... AzWm Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... William, you've ignored my challenge to define fair. If you can't define fair, then how can you say that suggestions that the "rich" are not paying their fair share is bunk? How can you say that they aren't? I repeat -- what's fair? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 12, 2011 13:14:14 GMT -8
Are we getting a little off track here? I don't see that big of a difference in what you two are saying in reality. What we need is reasonable regulation with eagle eyed attention to what is happening. Some of what needs to be done is a huge overhaul of the tax code toward simple and regressive policy. The concept in-elasticity of demand above a certain consumption level just escapes you, huh? No! It is just not a problem that we should be concerned with. We make some things like food tax free. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 12, 2011 13:17:46 GMT -8
Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... William, you've ignored my challenge to define fair. If you can't define fair, then how can you say that suggestions that the "rich" are not paying their fair share is bunk? How can you say that they aren't? I repeat -- what's fair? Yoda out... Trust me Yoda, you will not like his (conservatives) definition. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 12, 2011 16:16:22 GMT -8
Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... William, you've ignored my challenge to define fair. If you can't define fair, then how can you say that suggestions that the "rich" are not paying their fair share is bunk? How can you say that they aren't? I repeat -- what's fair? Yoda out... That is a rather clever but "unfair" question. I might ask how much of a goose can you eat before it stops laying "golden eggs"? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 12, 2011 18:02:31 GMT -8
William, you've ignored my challenge to define fair. If you can't define fair, then how can you say that suggestions that the "rich" are not paying their fair share is bunk? How can you say that they aren't? I repeat -- what's fair? Yoda out... That is a rather clever but "unfair" question. I might ask how much of a goose can you eat before it stops laying "golden eggs"? You might. But then you'd be off topic. I don't think it's an unfair question at all. Logically, it makes no sense for someone to label something as (in this case) unfairly high if they can't even define what fair is. You have to know what is fair before you can judge something to have exceeded that standard. So the question for William stands -- what's fair? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 12, 2011 18:06:40 GMT -8
William, you've ignored my challenge to define fair. If you can't define fair, then how can you say that suggestions that the "rich" are not paying their fair share is bunk? How can you say that they aren't? I repeat -- what's fair?Yoda out... . If Yoda is expecting a conservative answer, he will be disappointed. I have none. However, I am willing to suggest a libertarian definition. How about this; every taxpayer should pay at the same rate. In my opinion, no one should have to pay taxes greater than 25% of his income. That means no one's local, state, and federal taxes, should not, added together, exceed 25% of income. I suspect that my answer has not be pleased you, but you asked for it!  AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 12, 2011 19:23:28 GMT -8
Trust me Yoda, you will not like his (conservatives) definition. If Yoda is expecting a conservative answer, he will be disappointed. I have none. However, I am willing to suggest a libertarian definition. How about this; every taxpayer should pay at the same rate. In my opinion, no one should have to pay taxes greater than 25% of his income. That means no one's local, state, and federal taxes, should, added together, exceed 25% of income. I suspect that my answer has not be pleased you, but you asked for it! AzWm I don't like or dislike your answer. My problem is that the tax code is so complicated that I don't have a clue what various income levels actually pay -- especially if you factor in local and state taxes. If you limited it to federal income taxes, then I suspect that a 25% tax rate would be a huge tax decrease for the middle class and a huge tax increase for the upper class -- who get most of their income as something other than "pay" (meaning preferential tax treatment). In fact, I would argue that you would be increasing the federal income tax on the rich far more than the liberals want to. But for all taxes combined, I have no idea what it would do to the various income levels. I'm guessing that you pulled the 25% rate for all taxes out of thin air? Personally, for me, "fair" starts by treating all income the same. At least if you are going to tax income, rather than unsaved expenditures or something else. Yoda out... Note: I edited after you posted your response (below) so I may have messed you up a bit. Sorry about that... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 12, 2011 19:30:25 GMT -8
As I trust readers understood, I neglected to add the word "not" in my previous post.
The current tax code is really an embarrassment. It is way too complicated and filled with special set asides and loopholes, especially for those rich enough to take advantage of the latter.
Talk about injustice! The U.S. income tax code is filled with injustice and should be junked in favor of a flat tax or VAT.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 12, 2011 19:56:00 GMT -8
As I trust readers understood, I neglected to add the word "not" in my previous post. The current tax code is really an embarrassment. It is way too complicated and filled with special set asides and loopholes, especially for those rich enough to take advantage of the latter. Talk about injustice! The U.S. income tax code is filled with injustice and should be junked in favor of a flat tax or VAT. AzWm Those rich people you refer to are most of us. The four most expensive tax expenditures, by far, in tax law are: The exclusion for health insurance The exclusion for retirement contributions The Home mortgage deduction The deduction for charitable contributions A flat tax is regressive. A vat is just like a sales tax. It discourages consumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 12, 2011 20:02:40 GMT -8
As I trust readers understood, I neglected to add the word "not" in my previous post. The current tax code is really an embarrassment. It is way too complicated and filled with special set asides and loopholes, especially for those rich enough to take advantage of the latter. Talk about injustice! The U.S. income tax code is filled with injustice and should be junked in favor of a flat tax or VAT. AzWm You do not know what you are talking about. The four most expensive tax expenditures in tax law are: The exclusion for health insurance The exclusion for retirement contributions the Home mortgage deduction The deduction for charitable contributions Tax law is complicated, but you do not know much about that either. A flat tax is regressive. The four you mention apply to a vast cross section of society -- not just to the rich. So they don't tend to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. What about preferential treatment of dividends and capital gains? That one is my hot button... Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 12, 2011 20:04:44 GMT -8
The concept in-elasticity of demand above a certain consumption level just escapes you, huh? No! It is just not a problem that we should be concerned with. We make some things like food tax free. If in-elasticity of demand were negated by excluding food, you might have a point. But, that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 13, 2011 7:54:36 GMT -8
You do not know what you are talking about. The four most expensive tax expenditures in tax law are: The exclusion for health insurance The exclusion for retirement contributions the Home mortgage deduction The deduction for charitable contributions Tax law is complicated, but you do not know much about that either. A flat tax is regressive. The four you mention apply to a vast cross section of society -- not just to the rich. So they don't tend to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. What about preferential treatment of dividends and capital gains? That one is my hot button... Yoda out... My point was it is not just the rich who benefit from "loopholes". The tax benefits from those exclusions and deductions favor a large number of Americans. The Capital gains rate is certainly a cause for concern(at least for me), but a rate would not be, strictly considered, a loop hole. It is a tax rate. I was answering Aztec William's perfectly understandable charge about loopholes. And God please help me, I know too much about this stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 13, 2011 8:00:32 GMT -8
No! It is just not a problem that we should be concerned with. We make some things like food tax free. If in-elasticity of demand were negated by excluding food, you might have a point. But, that is not the case. I guess I just don't agree that "in-elasticity of demand" has a place in this discussion. I see the points that Yoda and William are discussing as more to the point of discussion. Yoda is on the right track except for his opinion of unearned income and how it should be treated. Were we to go to a regressive point of sale type tax system with about a 23% rate, that to would not be a point of contention. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 13, 2011 8:21:03 GMT -8
If in-elasticity of demand were negated by excluding food, you might have a point. But, that is not the case. I guess I just don't agree that "in-elasticity of demand" has a place in this discussion. I see the points that Yoda and William are discussing as more to the point of discussion. Yoda is on the right track except for his opinion of unearned income and how it should be treated. Were we to go to a regressive point of sale type tax system with about a 23% rate, that to would not be a point of contention. I think tax decisions should be based on what you are attempting to achieve and that decision should be based on solid economic principles. The average person will pay a greater portion of their income in taxes, when taxes are based on consumption. The benefits the more wealthy of Americans reap go into investments rather than into the economy. While that investment might eventually make it into the economy, regressive taxation creates an extra step for the money to flow through before it reaches the economy. Yes, in-elasticity of demand plays a role in tax decisions. The talk of consumption and sales taxes is seductive, because most people see the simplicity and not the inequity. I do not think that Conservatives care about the inequity enough. Sales taxes and consumption taxes are easy to sell, when the people you try to influence don't know the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 13, 2011 8:24:19 GMT -8
No comparing The Great Depression to our current situation. Currently we saw the market drop from 14000 to 7500 more or less. Now it is back to just over 12000 in about two years. The Depression saw the market go from 381 to 41. A drop of a much greater magnitude. It took over 20 years to get back to where it was. Big difference from now. In my opinion one of the reason why it is different now is that the government was able to intervene and prevent a total meltdown. I suspect you are against the government having that sort of power. Be happy it did. Good points, but I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion. All the mechanisms put in place by the feds as a reaction to the Depression did not prevent the crash of '08. The trouble with government solutions to free market problems is that they frequently do not really solve the problems while at the same time they introduce new problems into the system. Those on the Left really do believe that they, unlike others in the past who attempted to perfect the system, somehow have the answers that their predecessors lacked. Pride and hubris, that's what it is. As long as you give the govt. great power, there will be those who will abuse that power. Why? Simple. It's nicely encapsulated in the answer given by Willy "The Actor" Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." he said. The more power to control the economy is put under the control of the government, the more temptation there will be more abuse of the system. That, plus the inevitable unforeseen consequences that are contained in laws written by people whose self-evaluation far exceeds their actual competence. Let's stop believing that we can bring about Utopia. The Fabian socialists of the late 19th Century were sure that they could do just that. Very, very naive chaps, those! AzWm PS: For the record, the DOW did not rise to the pre Oct., 1929 level until 1954, a period of time in which the Democrats controlled the federal government all but five or six years. Those two statements constitute the crux of our differences. And sadly, my friend, they are probably irreconcilable. |
|
