How Should Rich Americans Be Taxed? (enemies, Reagan, death, Clinton)

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by saganista

Earmarks are an entirely appropriate legislative device. Like guns, they can be misused. It's amazing to me how right-wingers can simply walk away from say 30,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries that guns contribute to each year, yet go completely berserk if somebody gets a research project that was going to be done somewhere in any case done at a completely competent university that happens to be in his or her home-district. Oh, the horror...someone out there is actually working for the interests of his or her home-district...what next!!!

Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer - broken link)

Originally Posted by saganista

Just as a general note, it might be helpful for some to consider the entire economy as existing on a single plane -- something like a table-top model railroad layout. Within this little world, goods and services are continuously traded back and forth between all the people who live there. The people who live there are all of us. We are the producers. We are the consumers. We are the taxpayers. We are the regulators. There is no one else here besides us. Sometimes, the producers need help. Sometimes, the consumers need help. Sometimes, the taxpayers need help. And sometimes the regulators need help. Whenever we respond to those needs, and by whatever means we choose to do it, what we are trying to do is help oursleves. The more often we can do that, the better off we will all be. It isn't a war, it isn't a competition, it isn't a zero-sum game.

Yes, I believe that's a communist perspective.

From my perspective, when I interview for a job, I compete, when I go to make a sale, I compete, when I go to buy a product, the price is set in by competition, BO and JM are competing right now, charitable organizations compete for our money.

Everywhere I look is competition. Thinking there is no competition is naive, IMO.

Using the government to award those who have failed to be responsible with the money of those who have been responsible is a slap in the face. The responsible endure the burden of preparing while people they're competing with utilize funds that might otherwise be used for preparation.

Please share the moral principle that supports punishing the responsible person with paying for the irresponsible, particularly after the irresponsible were living a higher standard of living than the responsible. What is the justification in forcing the responsible to subsidize a better lifestyle than their own?

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Agreed, re: "deadbeats", etc.,including that the Dems also pressed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards and spread some of those Greenspan cheap $$ around, in the interest of enabling more folks to own a home, even when they couldn't really afford it. There's no shortage of "blame" to go around with the current mess.

But while it's easy to reduce the initial sub-prime borrowers to "sound bites", the messier, less visible and much wor$e side is what happened to all those loans when they were sold, "packaged" and re-sold farther up the investment foodchain, and for many times their original value.... all of it virtually unregulated.

On top of that, many of those loans ended up in complex new financial instruments (i.e. Derivatives, Credit Default Swaps, etc.) that few of the "experts" even understand. So very soon they'll also be coming home "to roost", and with an impact no one really knows.

i think too much emphasis is being placed on these cds's, securitised assets etc. all of these things are sold caveat emptor. just because goldmans/moodys/lehmans tell you something is kosher doesn't mean that you don't do any due diligence. i could have told you that the minute we hit a recession that the leverage problem was going to be huge. they shouldn't have taken my word for it though. all they had to do(before they commited their money was do a sampling.

one of the big problems with the current economic system is that people take too much for granted. we believe our pensions will cover our retirement, our money in the bank is safe, real estate always appreciates, ratings agencies spread the gospel, insurers never fail etc etc. all of these things are speculatory however. our pension/ bank deposits are invested and thus are subject to risk. there are no guarantees.

govt in this case gave out guarantees to stimulate the market. the problem is that free market regulation only works if the balance between risk and reward remains intact.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Agreed, re: "deadbeats", etc.,including that the Dems also pressed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards and spread some of those Greenspan cheap $$ around, in the interest of enabling more folks to own a home, even when they couldn't really afford it. There's no shortage of "blame" to go around with the current mess.

But while it's easy to reduce the initial sub-prime borrowers to "sound bites", the messier, less visible and much wor$e side is what happened to all those loans when they were sold, "packaged" and re-sold farther up the investment foodchain, and for many times their original value.... all of it virtually unregulated.

On top of that, many of those loans ended up in complex new financial instruments (i.e. Derivatives, Credit Default Swaps, etc.) that few of the "experts" even understand. So very soon they'll also be coming home "to roost", and with an impact no one really knows.

another thing is that stimulating demand through deadbeats or anyone for that matter stimulates the whole market. a common fallacy is that it's only the subprime mortgages at risk. in the current economy with unemployment skyrocketing, everything is at risk. unless the mortgagor has enough cash to settle the mortgage. marc faber explains my point quite well in this bloomberg interview. it is 25 mins long though http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm...0Dq_d8mCjA.asf

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Yes, I believe that's a communist perspective....
Please share the moral principle that supports punishing the responsible person with paying for the irresponsible, particularly after the irresponsible were living a higher standard of living than the responsible. What is the justification in forcing the responsible to subsidize a better lifestyle than their own?

Perhaps we can put "Communist" conspiracies, and whatever you mean by "responsible persons" aside, so we can return to the original topic of appropriately taxing rich folks.

And maybe the simplest answers to that question come from a source that should be recognizable by any individual who describes themselves as "Saved by the grace of God":

“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
"To whom much is given, much is expected!“

[donsabi]

Flat tax is the only answer with the rate to be determined. 10% to start with and adjust as needed. IMO, a federal sales tax would not work because those with the money would find ways to avoid paying it. Also, there would be a new "black-market" for merchandise to avoid a federal sales tax. It would be cheaper and easier to enforce a flat income tax.
Don

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Perhaps we can put "Communist" conspiracies, and whatever you mean by "responsible persons" aside, so we can return to the original topic of appropriately taxing rich folks.

If you feel the tangent is too far off topic for your favor, then I highly recommend you not give more energy to it.

Further, being that you lack an understanding of my intent with "responsible persons", it seems that you lack qualification to deem the post irrelevant... since you don't know what the topic of my post is.

Think more; post less.

And maybe the simplest answers to that question come from a source that should be recognizable by any individual who describes themselves as "Saved by the grace of God":

“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
"To whom much is given, much is expected!“

God gives us freedom of will. If it is in you to give to others, then so be it. However, God doesn't force you to give as does the government does through taxation when it's "charitable".

Further, it's accurate to say that by opposing the socialistic redistribution of wealth, I am supporting giving freedom.

Originally Posted by donsabi

Flat tax is the only answer with the rate to be determined. 10% to start with and adjust as needed. IMO, a federal sales tax would not work because those with the money would find ways to avoid paying it. Also, there would be a new "black-market" for merchandise to avoid a federal sales tax. It would be cheaper and easier to enforce a flat income tax.

I think when the masses blow money wildly, as they do now, via their representation, flat tax is appropriate. If we vote in the politicians and spend money frivolously, it's only right that we pay for it.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

God gives us freedom of will. If it is in you to give to others, then so be it. However, God doesn't force you to give as does the government does through taxation when it's "charitable".

I see. So apparently no matter what the Good Book or your faith says, you believe those rules are "discretionary", and only apply as long as they're not mandated by government.

Makes for kind of an interesting interpretation of some other "government requirements" (i.e."Thou shalt not kill", Thou shalt not steal", etc.).

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by mateo45

I see. So apparently no matter what the Good Book or your faith says, you believe those rules are "discretionary",

You are free to obey or reject.

... and only apply as long as they're not mandated by government.

The government's only tool is force. I don't believe it's consistent with Christianity to wield that force in a way that exceeds what I believe to be good government based on the theories of Locke and Smith.

Makes for kind of an interesting interpretation of some other "government requirements" (i.e."Thou shalt not kill", Thou shalt not steal", etc.).

Those are a couple of the basic duties of government-- they're why government exists-- to preserve property and order.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by 58robbo

i personally don't believe it was the flawed regulation. you have to examine some of the terms in the 'The Community Reinvestment Act'. Essentially this act was designed to help the economically challenged to buy a house. in a nutshell this act forced banks to lend to specific communities, regardless of their credit worthiness. if you loan money to deadbeats eventually something is going to hit the fan right? to ensure banks complied they were given implicit guarantees. the nudge, nudge, wink, wink type. with these guarantees, banks threw prudence out the window and gave money to every td&h. that imo is what got us into this mess. the road to disaster is paved with good intentions

Partisan fiction originally fabricated by Thomas DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute after setting out to find some way to blame the housing crisis on Bill Clinton rather than George W. Bush.

CRA was passed in 1977 for the purpose of outlawing redlining, the discriminatory practice by deposit-taking banks and S&L's of accepting deposits from, while refusing to extend credit to, any individual living in defined low- or moderate income (LMI) neighborhoods and communities. Once off the ground and organized, CRA enforcement was virtually ignored during the Reagan/Bush-1 years. But the Clinton administration began to demand compliance by covered banks if they expected any sort of favorable consideration on pending matters of merger and acquisition.

Meanwhile, though having been all but unserved by their neighborhood banks and S&L's, LMI community members still had mortgage and other long-term credit needs. They were simply forced into working with so-called "finance companies" on high-cost terms. The abusive terms and practices of these "payday lender" type operations had stood as a signficant barrier to wealth accumulation within LMI communties and for LMI individuals generally.

Under Clinton, CRA-covered banks and S&L's did at last begin to serve these borrowers in significant numbers, discovering that the majority of these new loans could be written at or near conventional terms that were considerably cheaper and easier for LMI borrowers to service than the loans they had previously been forced to resort to. Lo and behold, repayment on CRA loans was more reliable than industry averages, property values in LMI communities began to rise, and investment in LMI community infrastructure began to increase. CRA lending, it turned out, was not just good policy, it was good business.

In 2001, however, the Bush administration signficantly relaxed CRA coverage and enforcement. The volume of CRA lending held for a while, then slipped back into the shadows, being replaced by LMI lending through a then burgeoning number of private brokers. By the peak, these independent operators and weakly-covered bank-affiliated lenders had written nearly three times the volume of sub-prime loans into LMI markets as CRA banks, much of it under high-cost terms.

As subsequent credit crunch unfolded, CRA loans extended into LMI markets performed better than non-CRA loans extended into LMI markets and better than all loans extended into all markets. The thesis that relatively small volumes of better-than-average peforming CRA loans were somehow the underlying cause of the housing crisis is nonsensical. But it has been pushed as a cover by the right-wing disinformation media over the past year or so and not surprising numbers of the pliant and gullible have come to believe it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage

Yes, I've noted your recent propensity to hype this particular source. Could you set out for us your understanding of the methodology that CAGW uses in reviewing and assessing the validity of the particular earmarks they report, perhaps particularly as included in their so-called Pig Book? They do have such a methodology, don't they?

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Yes, I believe that's a communist perspective.

Right-wing reactionaries see everything as being "communistic". A lot of people these days are coming to see right-wing reactionaries as being irrelevant.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

From my perspective, when I interview for a job, I compete, when I go to make a sale, I compete, when I go to buy a product, the price is set in by competition, BO and JM are competing right now, charitable organizations compete for our money. Everywhere I look is competition. Thinking there is no competition is naive, IMO.

Obviously, the point of that post went over your head. Perhaps you are one of those whose vision of the world has never really gone much beyond that which was planted in your head by some JV high school football coach?

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Using the government to award those who have failed to be responsible with the money of those who have been responsible is a slap in the face.

You're getting off lightly at a slap in the face. Selfishness and greed aren't so well hidden as you might imagine by transparently fraudulent arguments of Personal Responsibility®. When all you've got to say is "I-Me-Me-Mine", you really don't have very much to say. As at least a few have noted when comparing the state of the union today to that which existed eight years ago, trying to run a society that way is at best foolhardy.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

The responsible endure the burden of preparing while people they're competing with utilize funds that might otherwise be used for preparation.

Your complaint might be submiited to those right-wing corporatists who diverted ever-increasing shares of productivity gains toward corporate profits and away from supposedly inflationary wage gains, leaving real incomes to fall for the many while private reserves of wealth expanded for the few. It is the rich and irresponsible who have been stealing from you (with Bush's blessing at every turn), not these poor and irresponsible that you and others imagine.

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Please share the moral principle that supports punishing the responsible person with paying for the irresponsible, particularly after the irresponsible were living a higher standard of living than the responsible. What is the justification in forcing the responsible to subsidize a better lifestyle than their own?

It's difficult to make out much in particular here, but if this is a reference to the so-called bailout, it was hardly undertaken for the benefit of, or out of sympathy for, any band of upscale free-market short-term profiteers. It was undertaken because years of refusal to engage in proper oversight and regulation by members of the laissez-faire free-market booster club had made such actions imperative simply to preserve any chance for avoiding the sort of worldwide credit calamity that would derail everyone. 2008 is the price we pay for the errors that laissez-faire committed in 2005.