The Housing Bubble

As long as the first primaries are in Iowa, the corn Mafia will rule!

“Gotta keep Iowa happy.”

+1 Jesus too!

Charles Grassley and other agribusiness agenda-pushers = Children of the Corn.

Measton, low cattle herd numbers make beef a fairly expensive protein source for a country like China. Pork and poultry are a cheaper(and quicker) form of corn fed protein. I did read within the past couple of weeks that China is looking to buy 2 million tons of corn from US as available.Once you move up from insect larva and rice diet to corn fed protein it is hard to return.
I suppose we need some ethanol production capacity in the event of a national emergency but I too am uncomfortable using our food supply for fuel.

Food inflation in general makes beef pork much more expensive.

It takes something like 20+x grams of grain prot to create 1 g of cattle. I think chicken is 4/6 to 1. Pork probably in between.

If cattle heards are low there is much less corn consumption going on. Yet grain prices continue to rise.

My guess is speculation. Not wanting to get caught in the down draft the PTB have pushed through legislation to increase ethanol consumption.

Good point.

I’m still not sure about the net energy gain of corn ethanol. I can never figure out if whatever interest group is including solar energy in their EROI calculation. Even if ethanol is energy neutral, there is some value in that you are converting solar energy into a transportable form.

It takes energy to make energy. I’m thinking of that nuclear plant in Japan. All those pumps, piping systems, emergency systems, and cooling systems need so electricity that I’m still surprised the electrcity generated by the reactor is enough to run itself.

(I won’t say that corn ethanol is carbon-neutral because corn needs the oil-based fertilizer, but I believe cellulosic ethanol is carbon neturon because it can grow in poor soil without fertilizer.)

IFIC, the import duty on Brazilian ethanol is $.40/gal.

Casino experts contradict your analysis of human nature.

I didn’t say that the number of people with impulse control issues was small.

Seriously, if the government didn’t do it, the banks would fill in the service. They get the direct deposit checks, so with a little extra disclosure from the account holder, they could set up a “folder” something like that in one of your accounts to automatically hold a portion of each check for use when taxes are due. For people whose wages change a lot over the course of a year or who hold several part time positions, they might do a better job since they have a view of your income through the whole year while an employer only sees what they pay you. They could even adjust it for your preferred “amount left over” (what is now a refund).

I’m seeing a possible business opportunity here….

Seriously, if the government didn’t do it, the banks would fill in the service. They get the direct deposit checks, so with a little extra disclosure from the account holder, they could set up a “folder” something like that in one of your accounts to automatically hold a portion of each check for use when taxes are due.

People who are self-employed frequently get the above advice. It’s called setting money aside for taxes.

Yeah, Slim, but those of us on W-2’s don’t have to most of the time. My personal finance method (check deposited in savings account, only take out $x a month for checking account, the rest is automatically saved) would adapt well to writing a check at tax filing time. Small business owners and retired people have to learn to do it, but a lot of wage earners haven’t picked up the skill - yet. Eventually most of us will end up in a situation where taxes aren’t withheld for us.

Keep in mind, before FDR changed it to help pay for WWII, everybody paid income taxes in for quarterly payments in the year after the income was made. Non-compliance was a real problem.

So it was a one time accounting trick to bring a whole year of revenue “forward”? Interesting. I didn’t know that.

But, you can only do it once. Like switching from FIFO inventory accounting to LIFO inventory accounting. Raises revenue once, but after you do it, you are done.

Actually people were mostly excused from paying two years of taxes all at once. But with with near total employment, the average income for the current year was higher than for the previous year, so current receipts immediately went up.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2092

Witness how a large chunk of the working poor vote for the GOP.

I’m not disagreeing (yet But would love to hear why you feel voting for the GOP is against their best interests?

Working poor women are the ones served by Planned Parenthood and government subsidized daycare.

Working poor women are the ones served by Planned Parenthood and government subsidized daycare.

Would you not agree that one’s “best interest” is an aggregate thing? Seeing as we don’t have 10,000,000 different political platforms to vote for, I’d argue it is.

As such, to evaluate whether one is voting in one’s best interest or not, don’t we need to look beyond a single issue and see which of the available choices serves the individual’s interest the best overall?

Certainly they don’t vote their best financial interests.

Trickle down economics = emperors new clothes.

I would agree we need to look beyond a single issue. That was simply the first that came to mind.

The working poor are more likely to have no employer health care and the Republicans are doing nothing to address that. Health care exchanges and tort reform do nothing if you can’t afford the premiums. IMHO, health care exchanges will mean that the only insurance that is affordable will essentially be no insurance (a catastrophic policy). Medicaid is being cut to the point that providers are taking no new Medicaid patients.

Republicans are almost universally against the minimum wage. They are looking to repeal child labor laws.

Republicans hate the public school system. If vouchers do not cover all of private school tuition (including books and transportation), they do the working poor no good.

Republicans want to kill Medicare and Social Security, so the working poor will have nothing to fall back on when they become decrepit.

Republicans hate unemployment uninsurance. They should just get a job already.

Happy2bHeard, if you believe that you must live a miserable life. No wonder you could be sold on hope and change.

” But would love to hear why you feel voting for the GOP is against their best interests”

Where to begin?

Policies that favor the rich at the expense of everyone else (taxes)?
Policies that reward offshoring of jobs?

Most of the working poor who vote for the GOP do so because of social issues: abortion, homosexual rights, etc. And the GOP doesn’t even deliver in those areas.

Policies that favor the rich at the expense of everyone else (taxes)?

How does tax policy work at the expense of the poor? Remember that the lower 50% don’t pay federal income tax. Clearly they’re not paying for anything, so how could it be at their expense?

I fail to see how your talk of social issues is relevant to the discussion of whether GOP or Dem is in their best personal interests.

Drumminj how many times do people have to point out that they do pay taxes before it sinks in. State taxes, sales taxes and of course inflation.

Tax cuts for elite and bailouts for elite create food and fuel inflation = a tax on those that spend a high percentage of their income on food and fuel. Not sure how you can miss this?

Tax cuts for elite and bailouts for elite create food and fuel inflation = a tax on those that spend a high percentage of their income on food and fuel

clearly you understand that the context here is FEDERAL TAXES. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be talking about bailouts….

So, let’s look at this again. Given federal income taxes, are state taxes relevant? No. Sales taxes? No. Inflation? Is not a “tax” in the same sense as the others discussed here.

So what is it I’m not getting? I never claimed that the “poor” don’t pay sales taxes or state income taxes.

Well Az Retired, Happy2bHeard doesn’t have to believe it.

Because FACTS don’t require “belief.”

“Happy2bHeard, if you believe that you must live a miserable life.”

Az Retired, I don’t understand how you reach this conclusion.

And I need to believe in neither hope nor change to see that the Republicans do not have my best interests at heart.

Or to phrase it another way, if voting D IS in their best interest what is preventing them from voting D?

“if voting D IS in their best interest what is preventing them from voting D?”

Guns, God, and Gays. (And welfare queens.)

“if voting D IS in their best interest what is preventing them from voting D?”

Guns, God, and Gays. (And welfare queens.)

Exactly. And don’t forget abortion.

People in the south ain’t be real smart.

And there’s no possible way that a master politician from the D side couldn’t find just enough common ground to peel off some votes? Or is it just impossible to expect civilized folks to reason with “those people”?

It’s not “those people,” it’s a southern mentality no matter what their walk of life is.

The dumb southern hick is NOT a stereotype.

Most small business owners are not wealthy.

I’ll second that post.

Third.

Thank god I thought I was the only one

Seriously though, Walmart, GE, Microsoft, Citi, BP, GS, Chase etc are not people they are multinational corporations which clearly are not paying their fair share. These are “the wealthy” and if we want meaningful tax revenues beyond a few “feel good” jabs at folks earning upper middle class incomes this is where the cash is.

Yes because we all know nuts and politics never mix.

Calls to violence are not, and never were, protected by free speech.

You want to appoint a beserker to the Fed Board of Governors?

I’d lose the comma to make a better scan of Donne’s work…

I was wondering the same myself.

I love the GOP plan. Get rid of the few remaining loopholes that benefit the middle class, but have no real effect on the super rich, while giving the super rich a tax cut.

What is there to not like?

“Tax loopholes” are just like “wasteful goverment programs.” Everybody dislikes most of ‘em, but nearly every one of ‘em has a small number of people who are VERY motivated to preserve ‘em. And a small number of very motivated proponents are often more politically powerful that a large number of nearly indifferent detractors.

Anyone who counters the piped in Soros propaganda is now labeled as a republican hack by progressives. I guess it’s ok to rape the taxpayer as long as the money goes to the “right” people and organizations.

This taxpayer is fed up with getting raped too. It’s time they rape the filthy rich.

“Anyone who counters the piped in Soros propaganda is now labeled as a republican hack by progressives. ”

Classic.

Consider the source Alpha.

If every person who earned $500K and above were taxed at 100% there would still be a deficit of $800+ billion.

Simply freaking amazing.

“Even if the filthy rich were taxed at enormous levels above the current ones, we would still have trillions in shortfalls.”

Where is the analysis or are you just shooting from the hip??

BTW, the filthy rich aren’t taxed at all.

“Where is the analysis or are you just shooting from the hip??”

Exactly. Show us your numbers, that you seem so sure of.

OK, I’ll bite :

hawaiireporter
From the horses mouth

To sumarize total taxable income over $200,000 (the rich!!!)
$2 trillion - Tax paid 0.53 trillion

Everyone else :
$3.6 taxable income - Tax paid 0.55 trillion

OK, I’ll bite you could squeeze an extra $100 million from those earning between 100 and $200k a year and possibly an extra $100 mil from “the rich” before they take off or don’t bother, but that still leaves a massive and gaping hole.

Where this gets interesting is when you start to look at the top 500 corporations grossing close to $10 trillion a year and avoiding virtually all taxes. Of course having paid off our “cough cough” elected officials not much hope of going after these outfits any time soon.

This leaves cuts cuts and more cuts, just like any other budget where things are tight.

I would put it out there than no matter how much revenue a government took in it would quickly adjust its expenses to use all that money and leverage it many-fold beyond that.

GH- The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy costs 900 billion dollars over two years, as has been widely reported- so you might want to re-run your numbers, in check with reality. (And your first source is a right-wing rag, your second is an IRS paper that proves nothing.)

The IRS paper is actual factual documentation, not “widely reported” propaganda from the very same press that pumped the housing bubble for years. Sorry, but I am a hard numbers guy and could care less what the press widely reports. With regards to the Bush tax cuts costing 900 billion, that is based on what could have been collected had the economy not tanked, and everything had been perfect. I would put it to you the Bush tax cuts put enough wind in the economy to increase tax revenues…

The clear facts are that giving the government more money means they will spend more. Great if you are a Union govt employee, not so good for everyone else!!!

Please help us by showing what, specifically, the IRS paper tells us.

Why is it that dummies can’t figure out that if the filthy rich don’t pay their taxes, we wage slaves will have to make up for it?

Is it really that difficult to understand?

“What gives you, or the goverement or (being generous by calling them well meaning) politicians the right to his money just because you want it?”

The concept of democracy. The Constitution.

Marie Antoinette couldn’t figure it out either.

What gives you, or the goverement or (being generous by calling them well meaning) politicians the right to his money just because you want it?

Well as long you didn’t use any resources in this country to make your money, then nothing.

Oh wait… but you did. But you don’t want to pay for it. Therefore, you want something for free. That makes you a thief.

That’s where the right comes from.

Hypocrite.

“They are easiest form of business to set up”

And as Alpha said, they pay the most taxes. A half savvy business proprietor would consult at least a CPA to find a better setup.

“Get out of your ivory or government employee tower and see how the real world works.”

You’ll find in the real world that employee wages, like most business expenses, are indeed deductible under all the forms of business ownership you listed above.

If some moron chooses to have all his gross business revenue appear as his income while running a company and paying employees, then that’s his problem, not one of the tax code.

If some moron chooses to have all his gross business revenue appear as his income while running a company and paying employees, then that’s his problem, not one of the tax code.

Spoken like a true public-union-goon-big-government-tyrant.

And public-union-goon-big-government-tyrants wonder why the real unemployment is over 15% with no hopes of coming down for the next decade…

alpha,

Bananas is just wrong. I explain a little futher down.

If you look at schedule C (remember folks, I helped some friends do their taxes this weekend, and I was all over these forms, though neither of their unincorporated businesses have employees other than themselves), under Part II, Expenses, line 26 is “wages (less employment tax credits).” That is where employee wages of an unincorporated business are added into the expenses that are subtracted from the gross income to get to the amount you put on your 1040.

In the instructions, the description reads like this:

Enter the total salaries and wages for the tax year. Do not include salaries and wages deducted elsewhere on your return or amounts paid to yourself. Reduce you deduction by the amounts claimed on:

[list of a bunch of credits employers can claim for employing certain people]

[Caution about not double counting some fringe benefit expenses]

In most cases, you are required to file Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for each employee. See the instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3.

By the way, I’m fairly sure this is the mistake that Joe the Plumber was making. He was all upset about higher taxes on amounts over $250K because he thought that was revenue which would be impossible to be below in a plumbing business that provided any materials at all. The likelihood that that business actually created taxable profits over $250K is somewhere between miniscule and nil.

And as Alpha said, they pay the most taxes. A half savvy business proprietor would consult at least a CPA to find a better setup.

Advice I’ve gotten is that, unless your biz is grossing at least $100k a year, it’s best to remain a sole proprietor.

However, I have heard of many a sub-$100k grosser who’s set his/her business up as an LLC. Reason: This is a lot easier to do than going the S-Corp or C-Corp route.

Note: The above is not meant as business or tax advice.

If he is netting over $250K per year, he is doing well and makes as much as the engineer who has a simliar salary (less the 7.5% of payroll taxes paid by the engineer’s employer). My guess is he nets substantially less and is writing off some personal expenses as business expenses (trucks, gas, computers, etc.).

Single member LLC is pretty much the same as sole propriatorship as far as taxes go unless you elect to be taxed as a corporation (but no one does and I’m noat actually sure that you can).

It does have some advantages as far as insurance goes. I’d recommend going with the LLC if you regularly have members of the public come to your place of business or if you have employees, especially if they are working with anything at all dangerous. You REALLY want one if you are dealing with anything that is environmentally dangerous. There are probably a few other circumstances, but my recollection is that it is mostly an insurance/getting sued advantage, not a tax issue.

Also not legal advice.

Goodness gracious. (I was going to mutter an expletive but thought better of it).

I have heard far too many “conservatives” wail about the the onerous taxes they must pay and apparently (?) don’t understand the concept of marginal tax rates and deductions.

For example, (in addition to the example in this thread) we all probably remember Todd Henderson the University of Chicago professor who doesn’t understand marginal tax rates. His math was simply terrible. I found this shocking, to be honest. I expected a University of Chicago professor to understand fairly simple mathematical concepts. Professor Henderson’s “”analysis” in regards to taxes has been roundly analyzed and jeered throughout the blogosphere so I won’t recount it here. I don’t know if he is still employed by UofC?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506051919012596.html

I’m just surprised so many of the Ayn Rand set position themselves so wonderfully for a proverbial joshua tree.

Disclaimer, I am one of those Overtaxed fellows but I don’t cry about it. Maybe because I grew up in a social democracy like the rest of us and the idea of an Ayn Rand utopia scares the living daylights out of me.

Yes, it is what he gets as the equivalent of a W-2 worker’s salary. Why would he cut an employee who is making a profit for him (bringing in more money than he costs) just because that dollar of profit is taxed at 39%, not 35%?

If the employee costs more that he brings in, he is going to get cut anyway. All we are talking about is keeping a slightly smaller percentage of the profit that employee generates after all the expenses of the business related to that employee (and the rest of the bunisess) are paid.

So the guy gets to live on an after-tax equivalent of his salary, just like the rest of us mere mortals. So what’s your point.

And raising taxes is not going to make the business fire somebody. As Polly said, under the 35% tax, an employee brings in 65 cents profit. Under the 39% tax, the same employee brings in 61 cents profit.

You gonna cut this employee? Well, you might, but it won’t because of the taxes erased all your profits. You’ll just lose 4 cents, get all mad, cut the poor employee out of spite, put out a lousier product as a result, and just BLAME it on the tax increase, same as every other dittohead shill.

In answer to your question, Prof Bear, 2banana has to be getting paid for this…

In answer to your question, Prof Bear, 2banana has to be getting paid for this…

If you want to challenge someone’s position and show how they’re wrong, that’s totally reasonable….

To try to discredit someone by suggesting they’re paid to have their opinion is pretty weak, IMO.

Just because someone holds a different opinion from you (even if they can’t support it) doesn’t mean they’re stupid, or a paid shill, or just repeating someone else’s talking points.

drumminj

I agree with your point as a general rule, but we are not talking about opinions in this particular thread. We are talking about facts about the current tax system and bananas is either ignorant or lying. There is no other choice. I admit that some people lie about things to try to support their views and sometimes do it without being compensated for their time.

We are talking about facts about the current tax system and bananas is either ignorant or lying.

I’m not disagreeing regarding the validity of the facts. I just find it ridiculous that disproving the statements isn’t sufficient - that folks here must then resort to an ad hominem and suggest the poster is a paid shill.

Facts speak for themselves. If they’re on your side, there’s no need to attack someone on a personal level.

“I’m not disagreeing regarding the validity of the facts.”

Then why aren’t you attacking the lies as fervently as you attempt to convince everyone here that you are right and we’re all wrong? I’ll tell you why. Because the lies support your ideology.

Being wrong occasionally is just human.

Being wrong everyday is either stupid or lying. Being wrong everyday for months is a clear trend of propaganda… or mental illness.

This is not an opinion, but scientific fact.

Speaking of lying, watched Sunday Faux news with my mom yesterday and Donald “short-fingered vulgarian” Trump was bloviating about how the US was the laughing stock of the world, and that we weren’t building one bridge in the US. Harrumph. I just traveled near an extensive road improvement project between Oceanside and the I-15, with two bridges under construction over the San Luis Rey river. Donald Trump as self-aggrandizing celebrity buffoon is amusing (flip hair), Donald Trump as silver-spoon politician (he inherited 35 million from his dad) is not so funny.

The Bridge of San Luis Rey? I’d be worried every time I crossed it.

Ha! I wondered if anyone would make the literary connection…

I think a lot of the outraged reaction is from contractors not keeping good records or not even filing, wondering how much they’ll whacked if they do.

That is also possible. My friends are dealing with two businesses. One uses materials, but the customers buy those materials themselves so it isn’t part of my friends’ gross business income which is restricted to the hourly rate. The other one is just an hourly rate business, no materials used at all. The only expenses they have are miles driven. They tried to keep track of it this year for the first time, but it turned out to be too hard to sort out business vs. personal use and there were several other people using the car. Plus one of the vehicles they sometimes used wasn’t owned by them, which would have to be excluded anyway.

They decided not to take any deductions at all to simplify the matter. Of course, they did get to deduct half of the SS/Medicare taxes. That is always allowed since you don’t need any additional records to show that you had to pay it.

Yep I gave up deducting mileage for my picayune side business..kept forgetting to write down the ODO for my trips, and there weren’t that many anyway.

Mileage makes a BIG difference for many small businesses. My wife has a small side business that requires her to drive all over the place. We were able to deduct almost 8,000 miles from her 1099 income last year. At 51 cents per mile, that makes a significant difference. The trick is to put the miles on an old car that gets good mileage as the deduction is the same regardless of the actual cost. Well, you can write off actual costs if you keep track, but much better off just taking the mileage in her situation.

It only works if they want to be deprogrammed.

Having an affinity for numbers helps too.

“…it’s staggering to think what perceptions are like outside of this echo chamber. “

The people of this nation allowing the PTB to decimate our economy and livelihoods should tell you everything you need to know about those perceptions.

“50% of the population voting for policies that take a pound of flesh from everyone but themselves.”

I guess a lot of them gave at work.

President Reagan loved the earned income tax credit as an incentive for the poor to work. He would be booted out of the current Republican party as a socialist.

Raising taxes hurts everyone who has their taxes raised.

Yeah, the filthy rich are gonna be “hurt” because they really REALLY wanted that second yacht.

This is why we’re having the discussion about what $250K/year means. At $250K a year, you pretty much have enough money to cover every conceivable normal expense: nice house, best health insurance, paid off cars for everybody, kiddies go to any college they want, eating out every night, etc. Okay, so a rich person pays another 4% for the income ABOVE that $250K. What, exactly, is that extra 4% going to take away from this person’s lifestyle? A new whine cellar? Keep in mind that the money for whine cellar could well give a senior money for the heating bill, or much-needed care for a veteren. I don’t know about you, drummin, but if I knew that the “fruits of my labor” — especially the frivolous fruits — had deprived a blind person of subsistence money or life-saving treatment for a sick poor kid, I simply couldn’t “enjoy” those fruits. Not at all.

At $250K a year, you pretty much have enough money to cover every conceivable normal expense:

all you’re doing here is rationalizing why it’s okay to take money from this person.

“Eh, they don’t need it..they’ll be fine without it”.

Just because I can rationalize something doesn’t make it right, and just because you can rationalize taking money from someone doesn’t mean it won’t hurt them, or they won’t notice it’s missing.

One could easily rationalize taking everything from you besides what you require to live a very basic life…because, you know, there are folks in the world who have nothing. Since you have so much, you won’t notice the loss of all the luxuries you might have purchased, right?

There may well be a good argument for taxing people more, but this rationalization isn’t it, as it can easily be applied to a ridiculous level. Who’s “the decider” of what’s reasonable to take from people..of what they don’t need?

Tootie frooties…… I want my froots I declare! All 3 billion of them.

Since when have the filthy rich ever labored? I’d love the opportunity to instruct them how to labor. I’d cherish the moment for the rest of my life.

What, exactly, is that extra 4% going to take away from this person’s lifestyle?

A comfortable life for my family after I’m gone? Care for my mother or other family members? Buying land to start the animal sanctuary I’d love to have and run?

The reality is I shouldn’t have to justify why I should get to keep MY money. But there are plenty of things I may choose to spend it on that you would even agree is worthwhile. But for some reason you’d rather me not get to have a say in it, and have they money appropriated by the federal government while they skim off the top as well.

I don’t know about you, drummin, but if I knew that the “fruits of my labor” — especially the frivolous fruits — had deprived a blind person of subsistence money or life-saving treatment for a sick poor kid, I simply couldn’t “enjoy” those fruits. Not at all.

First you’re assuming that the fruits are “frivolous”. Secondly, that’s up to us as individuals to address. If you want to contribute to those ends, feel free. And I’ll contribute to what I feel is worthwhile and what helps me sleep at night. That’s part of the whole “freedom” thing..freedom of choice.

The way you come across given your position, you want not just the freedom to choose what causes to support with your funds, but with mine as well. Forget someone making $1mil+ annually. I’m affected by any increase in the top marginal rate. Why do you feel that you personally have a claim to how my income is spent? Or that how you would spend it is more “worthwhile” than how I would?

The “need” rationalization is exactly the argument for taxing some people more, and it’s not be applied at a ridiculous level, not in the US, not quite yet. One could argue that it DID get to a ridiculous level, in Soviet Russia. Or that it gets to a ridiculous level in the other direction, in third world countries with a few filthy rich and a teeming mass of poor.

In the US, tax laws stop the rationalization before it gets to the ridiculous level. At the moment we’re in a delicate balance in the middle, which results in a middle class. And who is the “decider” of the tax laws: the politicians whom we elect, or buy.

In the US, tax laws stop the rationalization before it gets to the ridiculous level. At the moment we’re in a delicate balance in the middle, which results in a middle class. And who is the “decider” of the tax laws: the politicians whom we elect, or buy.

Obviously I’m aware that the politicians set the actual tax law. I would hope that goes without saying.

Do you really not feel there’s a need for a logical or moral foundation to tax law? Your position here is incredibly subjective - which I was trying to point out - and the rationale you use to justify taking an extra 4% could just as easily be used to take everything beyond a basic sustenance level - as all people deserve to live above poverty, right?

This country was founded on principles, not on a subjective whim. Presumably our laws - including tax law - should follow that path (obviously we’re far off course on that one).

First you’re assuming that the fruits are “frivolous”. Secondly, that’s up to us as individuals to address. If you want to contribute to those ends, feel free.

If you think that heating a senior’s home in winter is more frivolous than than a wine cellar, than I may as well give up now; we’re never going to agree.

And ah-ha, I was waiting for the “write-out your own check if you want” line to pop up; it always does. Well, I will — when and if my income ever goes above $250K (or perhaps less, I don’t know), which it likely won’t. I like the $250K demarcation as to when I have “enough,” enough that I should be doing more than my taxes do. And I guess you’ll write out your own check at some (much) higher level.

See, we’re similar people; we’re just haggling over the price.

“A comfortable life for my family after I’m gone? Care for my mother or other family members? Buying land to start the animal sanctuary I’d love to have and run?”

Your family will be much safer and better off in a society with less wealth discrepancy and a stronger social net. At least, that’s the case all over the world.

And your animal sanctuary will work much better, even if it’s a little smaller, if it exists in a country where we don’t let people and businesses destroy so much of the environment in the mindless pursuit of profit- ie where the EPA is well-funded and independent.

So raise the tax rates, and your wishes will come true!

If you think that heating a senior’s home in winter is more frivolous than than a wine cellar, than I may as well give up now; we’re never going to agree.

Do you not see the assumption you’re making here? That any money earned over that amount would be spent on frivolous things, and as such it’s okay to take that money to be spent on non-frivolous/less-frivolous things?

Just as you can provide an example of something that we can all agree is “frivolous” spending, I can provide an example of something that isn’t. The difference is you’re assuming that’s how the money will be spent. I’m not assuming it will be used for good or bad…simply asserting that it’s not my (or your) place to make that value judgement.

And ah-ha, I was waiting for the “write-out your own check if you want” line

Yes….that’s exactly what I said. I love how you present it as some kind of bad thing or failing for me to suggest that you’re free to spend your money in the way you see fit, and I can do the same with mine. “A-ha! You have integrity and believe not only that you should have freedom, but that I should as well. What a sucker!!!”

Seriously. You think that’s a basis to slam me or my position?

The fundamental difference here is not our price points, but rather that I don’t think you (or the government) have a right to decide how my income gets distributed. We may value the same things in life, but I would never try to take someone else’s money against their will to further my goals, regardless of how much (or how little) they make.

i don’t think higher taxes = fire a productive employee.

i do think higher taxes = less wine sellers…and the wine seller then fires an employee.

debating the former is meaningless.

seller/cellar either one makes sense i reckon.

Since when have the filthy rich ever labored? I’d love the opportunity to instruct them how to labor. I’d cherish the moment for the rest of my life.

Isn’t there a TV show about this? Undercover Boss, where the CEO does the grunt work for a week or so, and fails miserably?

Once again, why does this have to be so black and white? Are people suggesting raising taxes forever? I don’t know. I’m not. But, why can’t we raise taxes on the highest paid until debt/deficit is reduced? Cut spending. Then get rid of deductions like the MID and Child Credit. Then lower taxes for EVERYONE.

I’m not sure I understand the argument that lowering taxes on the highest paid has been beneficial to the rest of us, considering the past ten, and more specifically the last two, years.

Our most prosperous times were what, the 50/60s and the 90s? Were taxes lower or higher for the top tax brackets? Correlation? Again, I don’t know, but I support going back to at least the rates of the 90s for a decade to get this thing back on track.

“The reality is I shouldn’t have to justify why I should get to keep MY money.”

It’s not your money. Get it through your head. It’s not YOUR money.

I support going back to at least the rates of the 90s for a decade to get this thing back on track.

Do you support cutting spending back to those levels as well? And getting rid of the EITC and the child tax credit? (both of which were introduced sine then, I believe?)

You’re right, it shouldn’t be black and white. Personally, I’d rather see spending reduced (and credits/deductions removed) before increasing the tax rate. But your point is taken - there is a problem to be solved, and there’s not just one possible solution.

“Do you support cutting spending back to those levels as well?”

Absolutely. That’s what I meant by “cut spending.” And who knows? Even though I’m not a public employee, I might ultimately be part of the collateral damage.

I have a libertarian friend who is a union firefighter who has been very outspoken about the debt/deficit and not eliminating the tax cut for the highest earners. What do you think his response was when Ohio introduced SB5, putting him front-and-center on the chopping block?

Union firefighters. High earners. Me. If we’re gonna do this thing, everyone needs to feel it.

Philip Moeller, On Monday April 18, 2011, 11:34 am EDT

More taxes ahead ?

Today, the biggest fight over government spending and budget deficits clearly is between Republicans and Democrats. Future battles, however, may include a divisive fight between generations over who should pick up the tab for baby boomer retirement and medical expenses.

“EITC and the child tax credit? (both of which were introduced sine then [the 90s], I believe?)”

Whhaat? The EITC was introduced under Nixon (it was originally considered the conservative alternative to welfare, since it encourages the poor to work).

The child tax credit was introduced under Reagan, doubled under W.

Enacted under Ford, I believe. Reagan vastly expanded it in the tax reform act of 1986 when deductions for personal interest (other than mortgages) were eliminated among other changes.

Again get your facts straight.

DOD spending $707.5 billion
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion
International MilitaryAffairs $5.6–$63.0 billion
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion

TOTAL Military Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

By the way… thanks for the link. It indicates SS is full funded and there is an actual surplus.

Plus SS is not an entitlement program. We pay into it all our working lives.

Food stamps have never been mandatory.

“We pay into it all our working lives.”

I’m quite sure I have already paid in more over my working lifetime than I will ever take out, IN NOMINAL DOLLAR TERMS.

The income side of Social Security is fine. What was not factored were 20% cost increases on the medical side for a decade and a half.

At 20% a year, medical costs double every 4 years or so. At current rates medical costs will exceed the sum total of all known money in 20 years.

I doubt any of us are contributing or have contributed enough to Social Security to pay for medical in another 20 - 30 years. Not given it will cost many many many times what it costs today to be hospitalized or visit a doctor.

Medical expenses are the fastest growing economic threat.

Plus SS is not an entitlement program. We pay into it all our working lives.
”

I think there are a bunch of treasuries as colateral for spending the SS surplus, what happens if the debt gets so out of hand treasuries are not worth anything ?

Pretty sad way to run a government

Social security IS an entitlement program. Somebody who is elligible for for SS payments is legaly “entitled” to those payments, and the goverment is legally obligated to make them if they apply. No money has to be appropriated. Congress does NOT vote annually on how much to pay out in SS benefits, although the DO vote on payments to run the program: employees, overhead.

Entitlement is a technical term having to do with whether a separate appropriation bill has to be voted on by Congress, not a dirty word to call any transfer payments that you find objectionable or unwarranted.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the $10,000 average interest deduction? I was assuming they were talking about the actual effect of the MID above the standard deduction, but I suspect your interpretation is correct: In other words, they did not bother netting out the standard deduction from the amount of deductible interest plus other Sch. A deductible items, resulting in an invalid measure of the average effect of the MID on tax liability.

‘The NAR is conflating “ownership” with “house.”’

Stupid is as stupid sez…

IMHO, a capital gains tax of 15% is the biggest form of welfare for the wealthy.

how is taking less of someone’s money than you otherwise could “welfare”?

I don’t necessarily agree with the long-term cap gains rate, but I fail to see how one could attach the term “welfare” to that policy.

“As such, they are not much harmed by inflation.”

Except they can’t afford food, energy, and shelter anymore.

Conversely, if they owned gold, or oil futures, or farmland, or mansions, or yachts, or fine art, they’d be doing alright. Except it’s the rich who own such things, not the poor.

That’s how it hurts the poor worse.

Your example shows how the poor are worse off than the very richest, which I agree. But what about everyone else in the middle?

You can’t hedge your salary can you.

Maybe you could ask a couple of people living off SS how inflation affects them.

You can’t hedge your salary can you.

you just made Bronco’s point for him/her.

him. her would be “Bronca.”

“By definition, the poor have very few existing dollars. As such, they are not much harmed by inflation.”

Oh. My. God.

Energy, Food and Housing are not IN the official definition of “Inflation” Therefore the poor are NOT harmed by inflation.

Time those of you on the Dem side learned that I am far more complex than R spoutings.

Fact is I cannot abide the position of EITHER party.

There are a bunch of REALLY smart folk on this blog, mostly bought together by an amazement of the housing bubble. I wonder what could be possible if we really started to THINK!!!

Everybody should pay their share, from top to bottom. What is alarming is the widespread sentiment that “we” can keep what we have by taking it from the other group. Let everyone shoulder their fair share, it isn’t enough for this debt slave society though.

“Let everyone shoulder their fair share”

Again, I think all here agree with this sentiment. And doesn’t someone who has great wealth also have a larger commensurate ‘fair share’ to pay in running this thing? Or could they at least pay the same rates as the rest of us working stiffs?

Of course.

The conversation was about going after these middle earth working stiffs to support the low end.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…..

“The conversation was about going after these middle earth working stiffs to support the low end.”

Oh, I’m sorry. I got misled responding to your straw men. (All my responses were to your direct quotes.) Funny how that works.

And the original conversation was about “Very high-income households” that can “fall into the non-payer group”, and the fact that they should be ‘gone after’. You chose to ‘fuzz’ the issue with a hypothetical little guy that was gonna get hurt when we dared tax the big boyz.

But your fuzz doesn’t remove taxing the wealthy from the conversation, as much as you might wish it so.

“But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million…. Very high-income households can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits. <— THESE are the people to go after, not the under $30K crowd!”

No need to get your panties in a pucker.

I was keying in on making over $50K and working overseas, as evidenced by my comment to Oxide.

“I was keying in on making over $50K and working overseas, as evidenced by my comment to Oxide.”

Yes, but while keying in (on what SteveJ points out below is a distraction), you made several sweeping statements that implied those opposing your current argument harbored wild beliefs about wealth confiscation and the like.

“pervasive mindset that Anything can be bought for ourselves with OPM ”

“widespread sentiment that “we” can keep what we have by taking it from the other group.”

It’s called a straw man, and sometimes I like to pursue them to point out their purpose- to distract from the weak points of the argument being made- in this case, that the wealthy should continue to get their massive tax breaks, for fear of hurting a hypothetical little guy, who it turns out, wouldn’t really be hurt after all.

OK Perry, the little guy I was considering is me. Not trying to fill the whole checkerboard there.

Have at it.

“the little guy I was considering is me”

Then, at least according to Steve J and Rusty, you have little or nothing to worry about. Your first 92k won’t be taxed, and any taxes paid abroad can be deducted.

No worries. We can safely tax the rich, after all.

LOL, yes thank God.

I had no idea about the exemption on the first whatever. It didn’t come up in my research a while back on working in Canada.

So much for the hypothetical little guy getting hurt.

I think that has gone up to the first 92k actually.

But… you do have to pay that country’s taxes.

Also bear in mind that Rush may not be originating these points.

You do realize that we all pick up words and phrases from what we hear and see around us? As we talk about an issue with others, we tend to settle on a common vernacular.

EVERYONE does this. Those here that spout off on folks repeating a limbaugh-ism say the same things I see repeated all over the internet. Any thread on a topic has both sides using common phrases and terminology.

I’m not sure why the left-leaning posters here (not saying you tend to do this, oxide) seem to think they’re somehow immune to this and thus superior?

When I listened to Rush it seemed he got most his ideas from the Internet, namely Drudge links, National Review or Hot Air or online columnists, and used to read them word for word many times. He’s just one of many conservatives reading common sources. Most other talk show hosts did the same.

Rush was around LONG before Drudge. He was around years before the Internet.

You do realize that we all pick up words and phrases from what we hear and see around us? As we talk about an issue with others, we tend to settle on a common vernacular.

Maybe. But you drumminj, 2Banana, and nickpapageorgio spout Rush/Beck talking points, twist facts and utilize straw-men WAY more than anyone else.

It’s not done to establish a fact.
It’s done to make you think that we just can’t tax the rich because they already pay their fair share.
The rich benefit more from the system they should pay more. The reality is the elite pay much much lower total effective tax rates than the the bottom 99%. I don’t understand anyone in the bottom 99% who supports this.

It’s not done to establish a fact.

so are you disputing the claim that ~50% of the population don’t pay federal income tax?

My point is the bubble was present in China 6 years ago. It’s now much more overvalued than most in the world now. And doesn’t Australia sell a lot of raw materials to China?

I know some mates in the Australian military.

The housing bubble is insane there.

To the point that one “mate” is seriously thinking of buying a vacation property 4 hours away from where he lives:

1. To get in on the appreciation train
2. He will NOT be able to rent it out to cover expenses
3. But that is OK - as real estate only goes up
4. It need LOTS of work
5. He will basically spend every last dime he has to buy the place
6. His plan - after a few year to sell it and use the appreciation to buy a house in town
7. And this gem of a house is about $450,000 USD - and he is a buck Sergeant.
8. He already has the paperwork to buy with mortgage

Who can guess how this will end? I tried talking him out of it. Luckily (HA!) he just got shipped to Afghanistan so hopefully he won’t do anything for 6 months until he gets back.

“And doesn’t Australia sell a lot of raw materials to China?”

And isn’t this raw material turned into finished goods that is in turn sold the U.S and Europe - two places that used to have a whole lot of money to spend but now don’t?

They still have a lot of money to spend, nothing wrong with the keyboard button or the printers.

“They” are Not going to stop spending money, there will be MORE MONEY.

“They” are Not going to stop spending money’

Then why are there austerity programs in Europe and budget cuts in the US? There are limits to what central banks and deficit spending can accomplish. For instance, they can’t make an empty condo tower more valuable; not in the long run anyway.

Back to the point. Recessions serve a natural purpose; purge the economy of bad investments and reallocate resources to more productive areas. We’ve gotten to a point where central banks and the govts try their best to prevent recessions, and these cleansing functions. I think it’s a mistake, but that a separate discussion. If we have too many people building houses, a portion of them are going to have to do something else if they are to be productive. This can’t be got around by printing money.

Why? Because the only thing that will move these resources around in the economy is distress. Houses don’t sell, for instance. Now, you could say, China has a command economy. They can just tell the builders to stop, maybe force construction workers into the fields. But as these posts from 2005 show, they’ve known they had a problem for a long time and failed to actually stop it.

Now they are seriously out of whack. Overbuilt, banks loaded up with real estate loans, individuals about to get hit with losses. IMO, a recession will come to China. As I’ve pointed out before, Malaysia and Singapore will probably follow as their RE bubbles are spin off of the China mania. And Australia is in there too.

“If we have too many people building houses, a portion of them are going to have to do something else if they are to be productive. This can’t be got around by printing money.”

Has the Fed had this discussion yet? Or do they remain steadfastly in denial about the unlimited potential for the ‘printing press technology’ to paper over any real-world economic glitch?

Ben Jones said, “…budget cuts in the US?…”

I didn’t think they were “budget cuts” so much as reductions in further spending, and certainly not reductions lower than currently.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-04-17 19:50:18

They ran against debt. They swore and swore again that they’d cut up the nation’s credit card.

But now the 87 freshmen House Republicans are facing intense pressure from administration officials and even some natural allies on why they should — indeed, why they must — vote to allow the federal government to go even deeper into debt.

Comment by Neuromance
2011-04-17 19:51:22

“But if one thinks, as Law did, that monetary policy can drive economic growth, then the temptation is to create more money. And the banks will take that money and use it to finance speculation.”

Comment by The Daily Bell

“…the elites are actively working at various kinds of destabilization in the hopes of building up a single fiat-currency system that will further cement an global Order…”

http://thedailybell.com/2105/More-Nails-in-EU-Coffin.html

If so, that equals MORE MONEY.
Looks like they are setting up Africa as the “new” China to buy all the newly created debt and the old debt no one wants.

There isn’t anything else for these people to do.

Technology and outsourcing have reduced the number of workers needed to provided goods to the population. The only solution is to
1. gov puts them to work
2. Gov pays unemployment
3. Gov pays for prisons as hungry unemployed people will not behave well.
4. Extermination - Create fictional war as in 1984

3 doesn’t work because demand falls 4 Doesn’t work in the long term for the same reason.

And make$ the world run away for the U$ Dollar.

China = 1,349,000,001+
USA = ___314,000,002+

They’$ got their problem$, we’$ got$ our$.

Step$ right$ up folk$ & place your hard earned bet$$$$$$$$$$$$

especially the remaining rich part.

What we’re missing here is the REAL story: S&P, Moody’s, et al rated subprime sausage crap AAA throughout the bubble. Uncle Sam (in the form of Congress and Eric “Nation of Cowards” Holder’s Justice Defartment) has done NOTHING about the fraud and collusion committed by these agencies. NOTHING!!!! These ratings agencies should have been b*tchslapped out of existence.

Instead, they’re now turning around and doing the b*tchslapping. This is soooo rich!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that I don’t think the US debt deserves a negative outlook, it will NEVER be paid back and we should just default and not prolong the agony. But there is some sort of irony here nonetheless.

I suspect the CEO got a fat bonus that year.

My mom worked for a hospital that had 9 vice presidents.

one year they told employees everything was going great and they were making money hand over fist. Then 3 months later the sky was falliing and everyone had to make a cut. Long before bubble popping.

My mom stood up at the meeting and pointed this out, everyone of her fellow employees came up and said they thought the same thing but were too afraid of asking. The guy had no explanation just tossed graphs up on the screen again and again.

My guess is the 9 vice presidents took home a bigger pay check that month.

“I suspect the CEO got a fat bonus that year.”

Mark Hurd got a VERY fat bonus that year, until he got caught squeezin’ the Charmin’. Now he’s a fat cat at Oracle. From what I have heard nothing at HP (from an employee’s perspective) has changed under his successor.

“…if tickets were reasonably priced I think people would be more inclined to go…”

Could make a difference in the case of baseball games; what good are 60% of the seats in the ballpark sitting vacant every game, and what would it cost to fill them at, say, $10 or so a ticket? I fail to understand how baseball owners maximize profits with their pricing strategy.

By contrast, the symphony orchestra concerts I attend typically have 80%+ of the seats occupied, so I don’t really see much scope for increasing revenues by tweaking ticket prices. The ‘dead man walking’ problem, as I see it is due to:

1) Lack of interest in classical music among the younger generation, in part due to the end of decent public music education programs back in the 1970s;

2) Proliferation of popular musical styles in recent years splintering away potential future classical audience members;

3) Tendency of evolving electronic media to crowd out demand for live classical performance (e.g. why listen to the local symphony orchestra when you can hear Itzak Perlman on your home stereo; why buy a CD when you can download the recording; etc);

4) Cost inefficiency in the electronic era of having 100 acoustical instruments perform w/o amplification before an audience of a couple of thousand, when, by contrast, a small band of electronically-amplified pop stars can perform in front of an audience of tens of thousands who are willing to pay a higher average ticket price.

The music I love does, indeed, seem doomed to a future of decline, which explains why it is my hobby, not my profession.

“…that most paid peanuts.”

True dat, with poor job security to boot.

Count me out of the consensus. I expect that (1) it will be repaid, and (2) the repayments will be worth considerably less than their current nominal value.

I refer you to the 1973-1982 episode for a sneak preview.