Precapitalist societies were not bastions of fine education, housing and health, Will. Capitalism has raised the floor and expectations in each of those categories. When we say now that someone has poor housing it's a <i>relative</i> term. They're not in caves, they're not in corrugated shacks - they're in what was 150 years ago luxury housing (at least in NY that's the case).

False. Concentration of power in the govt leads to fascism. Departure from markets (by seeking govt favor) increases govt power and could lead to fascism. Regulation leads to concentration of economic power because it raises barriers to entry. Govt tends to try to increase its own power, and that's why corps end up lobbying and making contributions - it's protection money. Remember, it's the govt that has the guns.

Oh yeah? Then why was the USSR such a marvelous economic engine if that's the case? The US has the richest poor people in the recorded history of mankind. Poverty level today exceeds in living standard what middle class people had in 1900. The reason for that is capitalism.

If you would look at how well off people are rather than fetishizing economic equality you'd understand that the greatest emancipator from misery in history is capitalism.

My comment was in the context of has been at the root of great societies and what has been at the root of those societies failing. Nothing more. I think if we understand what makes societies thrive and what makes them die we would then can have a better understanding of finding balance. I fundamentally agree that being at either extreme would not work in a complex society.

Finland's public schools are by far the best in the world, better than the US's private schools. Health? Well we've covered that ad nauseum, but here you go again: France is the best in the world and they pay less per capita in taxes on healthcare than we pay per capita in healthcare insurance. And they have socialized healthcare. As for housing, have you been watching our private housing market lately? Had I not gotten out years ago, I'd be in serious financial trouble.


FALSE! Well, actually it's partially true. Actually it's half of what I said. Did you read what I wrote in my next post?
Wait, so you think that governments are capable of concentrating economic power, but corporations aren't? The government has the guns, and the market has the money. Both are dangerous.
It's simple economics, actually. When a country enters a recession, the ability to invest in new resources becomes scarce, so those resources compound while the market begins to rebuild. What we saw during and after World War II was that kind of recovery. It's one of those interesting natural phenomena in economics. The recovery from a recession can often lead to very healthy economic growth, as it did in the US. It has nothing to do with the free market, as more socialist countries like the UK and Japan also saw great economic growth after the war and reconstruction.
I only fetishize women, thank you very much.

Oh.
Sweet. :thumbsup:

will, your'e avoiding the question. What noncapitalist society has produced the good that capitalist society has? France and Finland aren't socialist economies, they're regulated capitalistic ones. France's experiment with socialism - nationalized industry and such - under Mitterand was a disaster. You can look it up. Nokia makes profits, correct? Renault? Sanofi Aventis? The corner stores in Paris and Helsinki are privately owned and operated, subject to tax and regulation, right? they're not owned by, operated by or otherwise controlled by govt, right? So they're not socialist countries. They have socialistic aspects, but the money to pay for that was generated by private enterprise.

Economic growth is what has raised the floor of poverty, Will. Not shuffling assets around, which is all socialism ever has done or can do. And you don't get economic growth in any appreciable degree without profits.

That stuff you posted about the UK and Japan was nonsensical. The UK was totally sclerotic as a result of socialism until Thatcher broke the system at the end of the 1970s. And Japan was bombed back to the stone age in WW2 - it had no place to go but up. But once it recovered, the socialism caught up with it and it has been in recession for what, 15 years now? Geez Louise, Will, don't just make stuff up. "Simple economics"? I'd suggest you go read Adam Smith if you want simple economics. Supply and demand still rule.

They're more socialist than we are, by quite a bit, which supports my suggestion that the best place to be is partly capitalist and partially socialist.

A strictly socialist society is just as doomed as a strictly libertarian society, at least with the population sizes in question.
I'm not saying it doesn't work when you're in the shitter, but libertarian, free market capitalism needs balance when you're economy is of a certain size or larger, otherwise you start leaning towards a corporatocracy. When the government can't regulate corporations, they tend to do whatever they want. How long did big tobacco refuse to admit their product was dangerous after they figured it out? For that matter, how often does even a crappy and largely ineffective government agency like the FDA save lives?
How about this:
- Les Trente Glorieuses. In the years after WWII, France saw economic growth and prosperity. This growth coincided with incredible and unprecedented establishment of worker's rights and unions, which are more socialist.

France was emerging from a disastrous war and was the beneficiary of the Marshall Plan, Will.

And I must have missed Sarkozy's promise when elected to increase the amount of socialism in France.

loquitor--i am resisting this time the temptation to start loading alot of information. i am not going to go after the myriad ways in which you are wrong about democratic socialism. it's not fun, it's not interesting.


what's perhaps more interesting is that you can't talk coherently about poverty in terms of income levels alone--try factoring in mortality rates--try reading some amartya sen. it'll be good for your head. whether this is a topic for here or another thread sometime is up to you.

You mean like the US was emerging from a disastrous depression?
So you're saying you think France is at the same level of capitalism as the US? Or more, even?

Recently Obama elaborated on his tax plans. Shortly thereafter, I started to see all kinds of articles and advice on how his tax proposals will affect people and of course strategies on minimizing the impact. Obama is going to raise marginal income tax rates and capital gains tax rates (on the "rich" of course), first the most obvious strategy is for the "rich" to start moving their money into municipal bonds, which are federal income tax free.

So, a wealthy fixed income investor will move money from taxed instruments to non-taxed instruments. And some people not currently investing in fixed income investment may now find them more attractive. The only potential problem is the ATM tax, which Congress is planning on adjusting.

There usually is not a capital gain on municipal bonds held to maturity or those that are called, so there won't be much of an opportunity for capital gains taxes.

You think that this would be good for municipalities - maybe, maybe not. We are mostly looking at bonds already issued and purchasable on the secondary market. All other things being equal, holders of those bonds today may sell them as demand increases (causing the price to go up and the yield to go down), they may incur some capital gains this year. In the future sellers may actually have some capital losses.

All other things being equal, there will be a shift from corporate bonds. Corporations will have to offer higher yields to compete with tax free bonds. If the cost of corporate capital goes up, there will be less capital investment. With less capital investment over time the economy will be negatively affected.

Oh my, to think that in an effort to soak the "rich", the rich would actually respond to minimize their tax burden. And then there are those pesky unintended consequences.

Here is more evidence that the "rich" respond to tax policy. New York and California, two states with among the highest state tax rates in the nation, are experiencing below average income growth. The two states are facing large budget deficits due to their reliance on increasing taxes and failure to control spending. Now, it is catching up with them.

It seems "rich" people and middle class people are leaving the two states and are going to states like Texas and Florida. These states have no state income tax.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0905180850.gif

How Not to Balance a Budget - WSJ.com

I wonder what will happen under Obama's tax plan, I think I already know.

Please note:

I apologize for "cherry picking" data supporting "supply side economics" and not showing you what to question.
I apologize for reading the WSJ editorial pages and subjecting TFP'ers to it.
I apologize for being a conservative capitalist pig (without the lipstick).
I apologize for being a cynic.
I apologize for zealous support of Palin.
I apologize for {fill in the blank, based on what offends you most about my posts}

Here's the question: whose income is growing? Is that growth in mean or median income? How about the wage gap? Is it possible there are other factors -- like, what is New York's major industry? And I suspect California might have problems unrelated to the income tax. As long as we're blaming politics, not business, what about California's unwieldy referendum system? The fact that more businesses are moving their headquarters to Texas might mean that Texas is nice for businesses, but doesn't say anything about whether it's good for your average Joe.

well, that's sort of a "duh." Being rich means being mobile - why subject yourself to confiscatory taxation if you don't want to? Mind you, a lot of people love NY and are willing to pay very high taxes to be there, for all sorts of reasons. But they don't have to. There's a reason why NY and CA have net outflows of US citizens (replaced to some degree by immigrants, who are at the bottom - low-taxed, high-benefit-receiving end of the scale), while FL and TX have high inflows.

I still love the logic of ace's latest WSJ editorial:
Cal and NY have high income tax rates and Cal and NY are experiencing people leaving at high rates....so it must the tax rates.

Sometimes the journal isn't all it's cracked up to be.

well then, come up with your alternative explanations for the exodus. Calif has the best climate in the country, scenery, and until recently lots of job opportunity. NY has the most interesting and dense concentration of cultural attractions possibly in the world. Why would people leave? Why would employers leave?

Actually, in California in particular, I think the below average increase in wages is due to the change or shift in the distribution of income. I think in California (I lived there for about 11 years) you have a flattening of the normal bell curve when it comes in income. You have more really high income earners but and you have even more really low income earners (in part due to immigration - legal and illegal), however the people in the middle are leaving the state due to a number of factors including taxes. I left the state for a number of reasons including the fact that the cost of doing business was too high for me. I took my small business, my family, sold my California home, let my California employees go, and moved. I am not "rich" and if you multiply "me" by the thousands of others, sooner or later it has an impact. I personally know many other business owners who moved, some to Arizona, some to Nevada, and some to the South East.

Taxes and the cost to do business drives behavior, there are consequences to tax and regulatory policy. I don't see how people argue against that point.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 10 : 50 : 31-----
Like I said - I don't understand why people argue the point that you can tax and regulate the "rich" and it won't have an impact. Obama and his gang think they can raise taxes on the "rich" and the "rich" will just pay the higher taxes. Supply side economics works when lowering excessive tax rates and it also has the opposite affect when increasing tax rates.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 11 : 00 : 37-----
I suggested several times that perhaps people like you and others go out and talk to people. I know why I let California. I know why many other business owners left the state. I currently live in North Carolina, a state that is getting a large number of New York transplants, I know why they leave New York. It is interesting but North Carolina is also starting to get a large number of transplants from Florida, not because of taxes, but because of the hurricane exposure. It may be a few years before the statistics and headlines start to reflect that, but talking to people gives one a heads up. This is one reason why North Carolina real estate has been holding up better than the national averages. I mention this simply to illustrate that Washington does not have all the answers, research (and citations from research) may be yesterday's new, a real people make decisions based on real things that happen - not theoretical stuff taught in grad school.

I'll stick with the findings of a recent study (pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office in which the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

So..that means that from 68 to 78 percent of that lost revenue is not replaced in the best scenario and no lost revenue is replaced under the worst scenario....it is LOST...which explains in large part the huge increases in the national debt under Voodoo Economics I (Reagan) and VE II (Bush)....the two largest increases in the national debt in history!

Ironically, the director of the CBO at the time was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is now a senior economic policy advisor on the McCain campaign.

ace, thanks for the advice :thumbsup:

But for the record, I probably speak to more business leaders, local government officials and leaders of community-based organizations in a week than you do in a year.

And I dont call people with whom I disagree either liars or ignorant in any of those conversations.

Is this the same study that excluded the possible impact of economic growth in their analysis?


O.k. - Tell us why they are leaving states like California and New York?
Tell us why some business are moving jobs overseas?
Tell us what business owners with S corps. planning on doing when they are faced with a dramatic increase in social security tax under Obama?

Aagh, more rhetorical questions.

I would not call a person a liar or ignorant in a face to face conversation either. However, if that is what they are that doesn't change the facts. In this case you argue against my positions on supply side economics, the impact of tax and regulatory policy while not really engaging my points other than to say they are wrong. Do you believe that the tax and regulatory climate in California has no impact on middle class people and business owners leaving the state? If you answer that tax and regulatory policy has no impact - what am I to conclude?

Alot of the fat cats in NY are probably leaving and moving south because the golf courses suck in NY! :)

On a more serious note, in California, particularly southern California, it could very well be due, to some degree, to "white flight" although that would never be given as a reason.

The point is that there are probably myriad socio-economic reasons.

I agree that a less corrupt government and lower taxes for all would probably be good for the economy.
I think the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy. I don't understand why it should be called "soaking the rich" when someone proposes to try and close the gap. Even if as you say it is misguided and the wealthy have many resources to avoid and/or pass on these taxes to others. There should be some way to make the tax system more fair to the lower income groups.

The way to make the tax system fair, is to make sure it is fair. When people try to target on group or another or use tax policy for social engineering you wind up with a convoluted system that will have unintended consequences. I don't think work, savings, and investment should be taxed. Tax consumption. People living like billionaires will be taxed like billionaires, regardless of "tax planning".

People are leaving NY because the economy has been dead in the water for years. I've lived most of my life in either NY or NC. None of my fellow upstaters ever mention tax rates as the reason to move. And I don't know any rich people from NY who have moved to NC.

My uncle moved because the only job he could get was as a security guard, and he was an air force trained Russian linguist - former engineer for IBM.

dc_dux, the notion that racism explains everything is a religious one, based on little but the wish to make it so. Most people have far better things to do with their time and far bigger problems to worry about than the amount of epidermal melanin their neighbors have. Please come up with logical, reason-based explanations rather than mystical ones.

Businesses want to make profits, and will move to where they can do so. If you prevent them from doing so by taking their money away through taxes, many of them will move. You simply cannot disprove that. It is an economic fact of life, no matter how deeply you wish it weren't so. Accusing people who run businesses of being racists is nonsensical. Especially when many of the businesses open in places like China and Vietnam (those pesky yellow people) or Bangladesh (where the people have dark skin). Yeah, must be racism.

I suppose I grouse about my tax bill here in NYC because I'm a racist, too.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 01 : 18 : 49-----
Poppinjay, I know plenty of people from NY who moved to places like TX because of taxes (or whose employers moved there because of taxes). Yes, the upstate economy has been in the toilet but the NYC economy hasn't. Lots of people who have transportable skills get tired of being treated like a sponge from whom money can be squeezed, and if they're business people whose businesses can move, they get tired of the sheer volume of hassle from regulators and unions. I know because a lot of these people are my clients. NYC has many attractioins, and people are willing to pay a lot to live here, but there are limits to everything.

True. One side of my family had a garment business in NYC for 20+ years. When it became advantageous to move to NJ for tax relief, they did. Racist?

France had a problem with the rich vacating France because of high taxes, moving themselves to Switzerland a few years ago. Racist there too?

I'm happy to try to reduce my taxes as much as I legally can with whatever is most comfortable for me to do so. Right now I don't want to move out of NYC, but in the future, that may change as my income changes.

wow...I dont think I said racism explains everything.

I suggested there are probably many reasons for populations leaving NY and Cali....including "white flight" in Southern Cal.

I would add many other socio-economic factors - family issues, housing costs, recreational amenities, crime, more sedate lifestyle, etc. In fact, a publication that rates the "most livable states" considers 44 factors in their determination.

Its not all about taxes.

fair enough, I'm sure you can agree that it does end with .... how much money you have in your pocket at some point vs. quality of life items (amentities, services, etc.)

cyn....sure, money is a very significant factor ..perhaps the most significant. But money in your pocket is also relative to employment opportunities, cost of living in NY/CA (as opposed to say ID/SC)

IMO, suggesting a direct correlation between taxes and population loss in these states, as is the case in ace's WSJ op ed, w/o considering numerous other socio-economic factors, is a stretch.

who's soaking who, ace?

the right's focus on taxation is just another dodge of actual issues.
behind the endless whining about those put-upon wealthy people forced by demon government to pay taxes, there's stuff like this:

Banking crisis: Merrill Lynch top brass set to share $200m | Business | guardian.co.uk

such a crock of shit, it's hard to know where to even start with it.
you'd think the right would have ALOT to answer for in an actually open and democratic political system.

I've yet to see a "top marginal tax rate vs GDP growth" scatter plot.

I have seen capital gains taxes vs GDP growth scatterplot ... and it sure doesn't say "higher capital gains taxes slow GDP growth".

Also note that the "highest marginal rate" in the OP's graph ... was at over 5 million dollars annually back in 1936. In todays dollars, that is $78,807,913.67. So to hit that, over 20 years, you'd have to realize over 1.5 billion dollars in employment income -- I fully expect, like today, that capital gains and income from investments are easily in utterly different categories that do not pay attention to the same rates as standard income.

If you then follow the "lowering of the top rate", it comes in nearly (not completely) lock-step with lowering the point at which the top rate is hit -- what seems to be going on is a stripping off of nearly-never-realized rates, with nowhere near the same significant change in the actual top marginal rate, over the vast majority of that graph.

In short, the OP seems to be drawing conclusions from that graph that are not remotely supported by the underlying data, and that graph seems to be ridiculously misleading in what it means.

If you look at Jersey City, NJ in the early 90s it was a wasteland of empty warehouses and loading docks. Why did the financial companies move there? Because NJ gave better tax breaks to the companies and they didn't have to worry about losing the workforce since there was public transportation infrastructure to fascilitate commuting. Eventually housing was also built, and today it's a small forest of skyscrapers.

So I don't think of it as much as a stretch as you do. Companies relocate to tax incentives, and people move for jobs.

Sure...that makes sense.

At the same time, thousands of NY "snowbird" retirees moved to Florida in that same time span...some for the taxes, many for the weather (year round mah johng and golf...and cheap "early bird" dinners near every retirement community!).

Our NORC is getting full up again because the retirees are moving back to NYC in droves. They can't drive any longer and their family and friends are up here. It's been interesting watching them return and lament on the changes of the city.

RB, I agree that it stinks for the top guys to walk away with a lot of bucks in a failure situation. But what do you propose to do about it? Have you ever negotiated an employment contract for someone who really didn't need your high-stress, high-visibilty job and is eagerly sought after by other employers? Typically the would-be employee says something like this: "I'm in demand, I don't need this job because (a) I'm already rich and (b) I have plenty of other companies that want me. But I like your opportunity, so I'm willing to work for you. Pay me a salary of whatever, give me stock options so I can get an upside if/when do well, and you know what else? I want you to protect my downside, too. If you want the right to fire me, or if you want to sell the company and put me out of a job, I want you to have to think long and hard before you do it. It'll cost you." If the board wants to hire this guy badly enough, they'll swallow those conditions. They usually do. The reason is that the talent pool for top executives just isn't that big. It's much smaller than the demand, as the current wave of failures amply demonstrates. So the boards pay up and hope they hired the right person. Does it stink? Sure. Is there anything to do about it? Well, other than have boards negotiate harder, no.

Thain, by the way, was brought in to clean up a mess that his predecessor, Stanley O'Neal, hadn't cleaned up. Thain before that was Pres of the NY Stock Exchange, which he was recrutied for after Richard Grasso was forced out - Thain was "Mr Clean." He was already a very rich man by the time Merrill hired him. And I'll bet his negotiation with Merrill's board looked almost exactly like what I described above.

So what do you propose? What do you think is the best course of action? I am in total agreement and outrage over excessive executive compensation (though I don't think it's fair to just keep pinning things on the right. Both sides are guilty). Something smells rotten to me in that area. The Merrill Lynch example is a mere drop in the bucket. There are so many other examples it is ridiculous.

Unfortunately I don't know how to fix it in a reasonable manner. I would have hoped the shareholders would have rioted or consumers protested.

I came across some more "voodoo" supply side economics stuff.

I was reading 1/12/09 print edition of Forbes magazine, page 15 and came across some interesting information. Steve Forbes made a commentary on how Ireland "gets it". The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5%, in the US it is the second highest in the world at 35% (not including state tax). Then he looked at corporate taxes as a percent of GDP. In 2007 Ireland corporate taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was 3.4%, in the US it is 2.7%. Imagine that, lower tax rates with a higher relative tax collection rate. I sure hope that Democrats start to "get it"

Are you seriously comparing two countries with such a vast disparity in population and GDP? You can do better than that.

BTW, Ireland is often propped up by Ron Paul supporters as well.

I quoted Forbes, he made the comparison. He used percentage of GDP to illustrate his point on a relative basis. There is tons of evidence supporting supply side economic theories, I have generally found that those who dispute supply side will ignore all the evidence that supports it. I just enjoy pulling the chain every once in a while. And, like Paul I have strong libertarian leanings.

that was a good one. throw in the ron paul supporters remark to make the comparison of population, tax rates, and gdp look radical and goofy. :thumbsup:

just saying that I hear Ireland come up A LOT when it comes to taxes, and Ron Paul folks are all about taxes.

Not among your tons of evidence:
Nope....I dont see the revenue booms from the Reagan/G Bush tax cuts either.

Yep....voodoo economics!

Bailout fever is out of control. :lol:

oh, that's just priceless.

Ireland is a little larger than West Virgina with a little more than twice the population (4.3 mil vs 1.8).

So, if they do lower the tax rate down to 15% in the US, what would happen? Would employers add more jobs now that they have things efficient with who they have currently? Would they keep the profits? The stock market would go up, but it isn't a 'real' improvement to the business. Would companies have money to invest in overseas production for importing back to the US?

I would support a lower tax rate on new small businesses for the first 5-8 years that they are in business or until they get bought out. Maybe even a tiered tax rate would be ok. If they had revenue of under $1 mil, they are at 10%, $1-10mil, 25%, 10 mil and up 39%.

This appeared on the editorial page of IBD, and no I don't work for them:

Investors.com - Soak-The-Rich Strategies Backfire In State After Deficit-Ridden State

This is a function of the fact that there is no market discipline at the government level because there is no competition -- and therefore there is no appreciation of the concept of trade-offs. The NY state legislators really do seem to think they can just pass a law and that will magically make things be the way they want them to be.

It seems that some don't realize that the "rich"have choice.

IBD? The same IBD who claimed that Stephen Hawking would've died had he been raised in the UK?

I do appreciate their tricky use of numbers. For instance, fiscal year 2005: begins in 2004, the same year Jersey enacted their new tax. Do you think they know how much income tax Jersey brought in prior to the implementation of their millionaires tax? Me neither. It probably would have been useful as a comparison to how much they brought in after the tax was implemented.

As for revenue shortfalls, the revenues in my home state of Minnesota have also fallen far below projections (especially if you compare them with pre worldwide financial meltdown projections) and over the last two terms of our governor our tax policy has taken a hard right turn. There's this little thing called a global economic downturn that seems to be having a negative effect on tax revenues. Perhaps IBD has heard of it. The fact that they don't take this into account in their discussion of revenue shortfalls seems a bit odd.

I know of one rich person who promised to leave NY if they enacted their new tax and he has yet to follow through: Rush Limbaugh.

Now, I'm not an econ guy, and I had to look up fiscal year start/end times because honestly that shit baffles me, so I recognize that my analysis might be incorrect. But as someone who recalls IBD's laughable Stephen Hawking references, I recognize that it's just as possible that they don't have any clue what the fuck they're talking about.

I thought Rush has his official home in Florida, no state income taxes there....

He was talking about packing up his show and taking it elsewhere.

Even more IBD editiorial stuff that liberals can dismiss. But perhaps California is a cautionary tale, in particular note the last paragraph:

Investors.com - California's Suicide

The reason IBD is so readily dismissible is that they write the kind of editorials that are generally so full of cherry picked facts and flawed reasoning that only someone with a strong confirmation bias could find them compelling. I think critical thought is much more to blame for dismissal of IBD editorials than anything else. There's nothing inherently liberal about critical thought.

Why not tell us about the "flawed reasoning"? I moved my business out of California in 2006, I know many others who did the same thing.

Or, why not tell us about me and how easily I am dismissible, gee I have not heard that in about, since my last post in another thread.:rolleyes:

I've pointed out glaring flaws in IBD editorials on the board before, and you failed to respond. Pardon me if I don't go out of my way to do it again. To tell you the truth, I didn't even read the editorial you posted because it has been my experience that whoever writes the editorials for IBD is either completely ignorant of reality, completely disingenuous or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a waste of my internet time to try and wrap my head around whatever bullshit they're spewing.

And I didn't say anything about your dismissability. I said that IBD editorials are easily dismissible. Your assumption that I was talking about you when even a casual reading of what I actually wrote would have showed you otherwise (unless you're the one writing these editorials) only confirms the appropriateness of my lack of faith in your ability to correctly interpret factual information. I can see why you like IBD editorials. <-this is me now dismissing you.

loquitur
so if you can't write your lunch off as business expense you'd brown bag it ? or maybe bring camping gear and sleep in a tent in the park ?

how is eating lunch leading to paperwork business any more than when a labourer has lunch and possibly chat's w/ co workers about projects running through the shop ? I talk w/ my coworkers every day about work during lunch but I don't ask the government to knock that yearly total off my taxes. I don't think I can.

you wright it off weather it's talking with a client your selling to or someone who works in your company with you on projects right ?

white collar guys can wright off work wardrobe citing the need to look presentable right ? I can't wright off work clothes which I need to buy cause they get destroyed at a metal shop. but I can't wright them off my taxes. at least an office guy can sell his clothes on consignment when he gets tired of them, mine are rags.

If I don't respond it could be because I didn't read the post or did not see it.

Occasionally I post traditional editorials from IBD and occasionally they are opinion peices from various authors that appear on IBD editorial pages. IBD regularlly includes liberals on their editorial pages. On the same day they published their California editorial they had an opinion piece on their editorial pages written by Eugene Robinson, here it is FYI:

Investors.com - KSM On Trial: Battlefield For A War Of Ideas

So you could be calling the liberals that appear on the IBD editorial pages completely ignorant or we can say that your view of IBD is based some misconceptions. For the record I generally don't post things here that don't support my views. I am and have been guilty of "cherry picking" and I admit it. But, in my view that is the nature of debate, and I think participants in debate (even passive participants) need to do their own homework. You know, like Reagan said: "trust but verify".

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

The tax laws regarding legitimate business expenses are the same for everyone regardless of the color of their collar. In order to take deductions for normal clothing one has to be able to present a strong case to the IRS when they get audited, normally it is not allowed. It is easier to deduct required specialty work related clothing, like safety shoes, uniforms, hard hats, gloves, etc.

I think that it's safe to say that my impression of IBD might be based on misconceptions, but in all fairness to me, those misconceptions were based almost entirely on the things you posted from IBD. Also, any publication that bases an editorial on the premise that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive had he been subject to the British healthcare system without actually verifying that he hadn't been subject to the British healthcare system has lost all credibility. So regardless of whether they have editorialists who aren't hacks, be they liberal or conservative, I'm not going to assume that the facts and conclusions set forth in their editorials are worthy of serious consideration.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, most editorials, be they IBD or no, are equivalent to long farty noises in terms of usefulness.

I don't assume that either, if I read an editorial that contains information that I question I check the sources. Regarding IBD's assessment of California's small business climate and the impact it is having on their budget, I have direct personal experience that confirms the information in the editorial, and I have been looking at California demographic trends for about 10 years. For a number of years I was a small business owner and tax payer in California. I left the state. I personally know many others who did the same. Currently I am not paying taxes in California or providing jobs in California, multiply that by the the thousands and thousands of others who have done the same and sooner than later it starts to have a big impact. California will get through this crisis because sooner or later they will do what needs to be done in terms of cutting taxes and cutting spending and businesses and middle class people will return - after all it is or can be a great place to live and make money.

Ten year trends?

From SBA and Census data:

In 2000, there were 658,898 small businesses (under 500 employees) in California; in 2008, there were 723,880.

Let's play battle of the factoids (Factoid - in the context of not disputing the accuracy but in putting bits of information on the table that could lead to improper conclusions), i love these "chest pounding" contests.

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/...n_011008_1.gif

Population Shift to Southeast and Rocky Mountains Accelerates | Construction Industry News | Reed Construction Data

I won't give my interpretation of the graphic above, everyone can come to their own conclusions. I just ask, who do you think is leaving California and why? Who is going to California and why?

In response to your factoid - it shows small business growth of about 10%. In 2000 the California state expenditures was a little less than $80 billion, in 2008 the number was close to $105 billion a 31% increase. Here is a link to a data table showing non-farm employment growth of 6.9% from 2000 to 2007. It is not a perfect match but population growth from 2000 to 2008 was 8.5%. Is there something wrong here? Perhaps, don't you agree?
California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Under the radar
 

As we study the root causes of the "financial crisis" my theory is that the people in charge of regulating the system are always going to be one step behind those who work in the system to make money. When the system gets so complicated what we find is that "rich" people will always find ways around well intentioned government policy. So, government should stop with social engineering and develop systems that are simple and fair. What follows won't get much attension and a few are pointing out this conflict with the former Treasury Secretary and his former company Goldman. All I can say is that the guy is pretty smart, here is why:

A Loophole For Poor Mr. Paulson - Forbes.com

The guy serves two years in a lame duck administration and pockets $100 million in tax savings.

*Assume he cashes out at around the peak for Goldman, maximizing his pay or profits.
He buys treasuries, risk free, positive returns.

*Financial crisis hits.

* He drafts TARP and gets Congress to take the credit.

*TARP gives him the freedom to do what he wants with over $700 billion. Obama and other "smart" people say it meets their requirements, etc., etc. - not really having a clue, but it was good campaign rhetoric.

*TARP money goes to AIG for a bailout so AIG can pay Goldaman, not pennies on the dollar, but dollar on the dollar (plus their profit on the deals)

*Goldman's stock price drops significantly from its peak, along with every other financial company.

*Goldman's competition is lessened by some competitors going out of business.

*Goldman becomes a "commercial bank" without any commercial banking activities. Approved by regulators.

*Goldman gets bailout money.

*Goldman get access to low/no cost access to credit from the Federal Reserve.

*Goldman makes mo money, mo money, mo money.

*Somewhere in there Paulson's term expires as Treasury Secretary.

I don't know what he does, I speculate:

Let's say after his term expires he starts buying Goldman stock which is undervalued. And now of course the stock price is rebounding from its lows. The company is positioned in the market with less competitions and now Paulson can make, mo money, mo money, mo money. Like I said the guy is pretty smart.

I was against TARP from the beginning. Most people were aware of the potential conflict, and for those not aware were told about it - it was ignored. The average American got absolutely no benefit from TARP. TARP did not save us from the "brink", all it did was allow a select few "rich" people make, mo money, mo money, mo money.

McCain is now saying he was "duped", at least he is being honest. Now I am seeing "holier than thou" types make fun of him. I am amazed.:shakehead:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._le_peuple.jpg

These people soaked the rich. It is possible, but our current government is never going to do anything. The rules on corporations and government officials would have to be re-written and made very limiting and strict. And for some reason I have heard more stories in the media about corruption in Afghanistan than right here in the US.

Consider that government is part of the problem. Government needs to keep it simply with its focus on fairness rather than social engineering.

In the case with Paulson the government created a situation where a select few can take advantage of a loop hole intended to help people serve government without an appearance of a conflict of interest. However, they did not eliminate the conflict and they allowed an individual to exploit the rule without being in violation of any law. The best solution is not having people like Paulson approved for a position like Treasury Secretary. Congress failed in it role of checks and balances to the executive branch.

How can you think McCain is being honest when he said he was duped? He's full of shit and he can't even make it sound convincing.

I don't see anything wrong with this loophole. You wouldn't be able to recruit people from the private sector without it. The people who they want to take these jobs are going to have lots of money invested. If they have to sell their assets when they take the job then we are asking them to pay a lot of money out in taxes that they wouldn't have paid otherwise. They will still pay the taxes when they finally sell the assets that they transferred to the govt. securities.

I believe he was duped. I think giving the treasury secretary a "blank check" was a bad idea. I think the intent of TARP, to save us from a complete collapse of the financial sector was exaggerated. I have never seen a real explanation of how the entire financial sector was at risk, certainly there were segments and specific companies at risk but not the entire sector. And, even if the entire sector was at risk, $700 bil. was not enough to save it.

He did not sound convincing then or now, but he is not the only one who lacks credibility regarding TARP in my opinion.

We disagree.

Again, I disagree. What is wrong with selling, taking your profits, paying your fair share of taxes and moving on to work for the government??? Nothing. This is simply a rule to allow "rich" people to avoid or delay paying their fair share of taxes. Since I am not "rich" this outrages me. The playing field is not even.

Also, Paulson is an entrenched Goldman Sachs guy, it is in his blood. Only the foolish would put him in charge of $700 bil and the ability to save his former company at the expense of the tax payer. I fault Bush for this also, the problem with Bush is he was on his way out and was singularly focused on the war.

Do you not understand, the motivation was not to serve the American people but to save $100 million in taxes in less than two years? We would have been better off having Paulson pay his taxes and do something else.

How about we call this making a sacrifice to serve a greater good. It happens everyday, why should people with more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime not make sacrifice?

I don't have a problem with "rich" people, I want to be one of them one day. If I ever make it (and maybe the reason I won't), I would not have a problem cashing out, paying my fair share of taxes, in order to serve a greater cause than making more money.

Do you really think Paulson is going to pay $100 million in taxes? Do you really think that??? I guess everything is relative, perhaps he would pay that much but it depends on the income or asset base, $100 million on $1 billion is one thing, $100 million on $10 billion is something else. My argument is, just have a fair tax code across the board without the incentives to hide or shelter money at certain income or asset levels.

First they soaked them, then they imprisoned them, then they killed them and their entire families.

Once -that- was accomplished, they set about destroying religious freedom in the Vendee, converting all churches into State-run propaganda organs, destroying hostile press, and "liquidating" those deemed "enemies of the people" by a bunch of Terrorists (seriously; they -invented- the word and used it to describe -themselves-) led by a sociopathic lawyer from Arras with a fondness for small boys and the world's worst choice in friends.

Then, when all this was accomplished, what did they get in return for fifteen years of bloodshed, repression, and Terreur?

Napoleon, twice.

Holding up the Enragees and the Committee for Public Safety as an example of anything other than the prototype for every tyrannical left-statist government since is a grave error, IMO. And that's not even getting into the morality of "soaking" anyone, rich or poor.

geez, dunedan, spoken like a real old-line reactionary there. kinda impressive.
la vendée.....they were just a bunch of peace-loving defenders of the true faith, yes?
one of the great myths of reactionaries around the world, the "massacre" of the vendéens.

and you even repeat a bunch of reactionary slurs about robespierre.
great stuff.
are you reading de maistre or some such?


the terror lasted about 8 months. from the time robespierre got to be ascendant until he was executed by the convention, about a year.
the person who did more to create the modern state than anyone was napoleon.

not sure whether it is a good idea to turn this into a french revolution discussion or not. but it'd be kinda fun to do it. in a dorky way of course. thinking....

Never said that or implied it. However, the Vendeean rebels -were- provoked by the State's attack upon their faith, especially by the requirement that all Priests be State employees, and that all Seminaries be State-run. Danton's notions about fiddling with their taxes probably helped a bit, but there's much less primary-source evidence for that angle.

Hmm...I wonder, then, how Saint-Just came by his charming nickname? They didn't call him "The Angel Of Death" because of a fondness for Ozzy Osborne, that's for sure. Most of my reading indicates it's because he was a psychotic mass-murderer who popularised such entertainment as "Republican Weddings" and the sinking of prison hulks filled with dissenters and their families. A great deal of the information from the time period immediately surrounding the Vendeean uprising was distorted and exaggerated, true, but the fact is that the Revolutionary government engaged in what possibly qualifies as attempted genocide and -certainly- qualifies as cultural imperialism on a massive scale, backed up by the massacres of thousands of people. Then of course you have Gen. Carrier's instructions to "pacify" the region, and Gen. Westermann's boast that "There is no more Vendée. It died with its wives and its children by our free sabres. I have just buried it in the woods and the swamps of Savenay. According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop... Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment" In light of such facts I find it difficult to understand how you can assess the Vendeean massacres as a myth.

I have yet to see any information suggesting that they were inaccurate: Robespierre was known for his inordinate "touchiness" with his son in the last few years of his life, and was widely rumoured even among the rest of the CPS to be recruiting catamites from the prisons wherein the CPS housed its' victims and their families. Desmoulins and Danton even accused him of bribing his prospective entertainment by promising safety for their families. All of this is, as I'm sure you're aware, very much a matter of public record. [Edited To Add: I have dug through my old notes on the subject, and while substantial portions of my undergraduate research are still lost in the depths of Henry McKenna boxes from my last move, I cannot find any notes or citations in what I -could- find to support this point. The point is, therefore, withdrawn.]

Too hysterical for my tastes.

For the official phase known as La Grand Terreur, correct. However, the Committee For Public Safety had been in operation (and killing people, though Danton eventually left over even the pre-Robespierre excesses) for much longer, and the various acts of legal and freelance mob violence which preceded it were certainly not what you'd call "polite civic discourse."

No argument here, trust me. However, without the power structure created by the Revolution and Terror, he would never have gotten as far as he did. Absent the Levee En Masse and its' various offspring, he would have probably remained a first-rate artillery officer with bad penmanship and a decent career track. He could never have become Emperor without the structures, army, and financial black hole created by the Revolution. Rather similar to the fact that Mr. Obama would never have been able to get away with his ridiculous deficits if Reagan and Bush-II hadn't cleared his way.

At the risk of offending you and causing you to go into spastic fits of frustration with my moot comparisons, how about that French Revolution and the parallels of the conditions leading up to it and current condition in the US? Namely, national debt, unfair taxation and incompetent political leadership, gee, sounds familiar:eek:

The problem is the people who are angry now won't give us socialized healthcare, a fair economy, and equal rights for all after a revolution. And it will be a long time before their plan could even get close to making the US have the highest quality of life.
Why France is best place to live in world - CNN.com

well, ace, that parallel depends on how vague you want to get. the proximate cause for the revolt of the aristocracy was the french crown's default on bonds it had floated to pay for a military adventure in the british colonies. the larger problem was that bond issues were how wars were paid for. so the problem was a lack of centralized taxation which would have provided a rational way to pay for a modern-style military. as for the comptence of louis 16...well...he was a sort of affable dope really. a regular guy affable dope who happened to find himself king. he preferred his hobbies. i dont think the parallels work too well

dudedan: the vendee letter is the center of the mythology. it's not at all obvious that the action it outlines happened.
it's become fashionable, or was for a while, to follow furet off into conservative revisionism of the revolution, particularly the committee for public safety and the terror. but no matter i suppose. furet was at least smart about it. alot of the conservative revisionism less so.

anway much of the dynamism of the terror seemed to follow from the situation---a constitutional crisis that gave way to a crisis of definition for the revolution---and the fact that robespierre et al did not have a clear idea of what the revolution was but did have a clear idea of operating as a faction. so the revolution began to eat itself. the terror has alot more to do with situational dynamics than it does biographical factoids i think. one of the central lessons the left revolutionary tradition drew from the terror was the need for a revolutionary platform, which would enable folk to determine what the revolution is and to avoid the pattern....

Clarify how you approach historical lessens as they may benefit actions in a current context? I would never expect a near perfect historical parallel to current events, your posts seem to me that you do. It is easy to point obvious differences and be dismissive, to me the greater challenge is to see the commonalities and divine the lessons that can apply to the current context.

I'm not either and probably never will be but I still don't see anything wrong here. It is no different than him taking a job elsewhere and not selling his stock. That puts the govt at a disadvantage when looking for certain types of people.

He's only "saving" on his taxes if he would have sold the stock over the next two years. Otherwise there was no change.


When he cashes out his govt securities he will be taxed at the typical rate using the prices he paid as the basis for calculating his capital gains taxes.

I'm all for having a fair tax code and taking out loopholes that are wrong but I don't see this as one of those kinds of loopholes.

The point of this thread from the start was that "rich" people can avoid excessive taxation and that tax policy targeting the "rich" is ineffective. "rich" people pay what they want to pay or what they think is fair. Our tax policy really hurts the middle class and those attempting to move up from poverty. In some cases the marginal tax rates are actually above 100%.



In this case, he had a conflict of interest that may have impacted public policy. His actions and the actions of Geitner benefited a few at the expense of many. He benefited from the timing of the events that followed his appointment. And as politician talk about bonuses, under the radar we have stuff like this going on. I just don't think the playing field is fair.




He never has to cash out. He could use the govt securities as collateral for a loan, he could put them in a trust, he could do some other things to avoid or postpone the tax burden.

Fair enough, we disagree. But at the root of the problem do we agree that at high tax rates people have great incentive to do things to avoid the tax and at lower tax rates people will be more inclined to simply pay the tax owed and move on. So, the irony is that the government may collect more in taxes at a lower more reasonable rates than at higher rates. There is a theoretical equilibrium tax rate were taxes collect is maximized. I think we should work to find that rate rather than playing the class warfare game of taxing the "rich". I also think we should eliminate excessively high marginal tax rates for people working their way up the socioeconomic ladder, for example the loss of the earned income tax credit could be a big disincentive for a poor person to make more money.

ace--i think that rather than derail the thread, i'll leave what i posted at that for the time being. maybe we can take up the question of historical parallels and how to use them another time.

The only fair tax code would be a flat tax on gross earnings. No how much or little you earn. If one is compelled to earn more he would pay more at that point. The current tax codes punish the ambitious and successful and that is not fair.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

The only fair tax code would be a flat tax on gross earnings. Not how much or little you earn. If one is compelled to earn more he would pay more at that point. The current tax codes punish the ambitious and successful and that is not fair.

a flat tax (ie the same rate across all income levels) is actually regressively punishes the poor

A flat tax system could be set up to exclude the poor. Or include allowances for things like basic food, shelter, out-of-pocket health care, and other basic necessities. I would prefer a tax code be as simple as possible but a flat tax rate does not have to be punitive to anyone or it could be set-up to be punitive. The biggest advantage to a flat-tax is the predictability across all income levels. It minimizes the incentive to shelter income from taxation because of excessive marginal rates as a person goes from on rate to another, or as they lose tax credits and deductions. For example a poor person with the earned income tax credit can take a big hit if they make too much money and lose the credit - people should not be faced with staying poor with the credit or earning a little more money from year to year to get out of "poverty". Why do we have a tax code where people can lose thousands, just because they earn $1 over a cut-off?

the reason that the tax code is complicated is not because it is progressive, it is because there are a number of rules on what constitutes income or not and what is deductible or not. A flat tax solves none of those issues.

For the record, I would not tax income at all, I would tax consumption. Secondarily, tax simplification is the key. All other things being equal I would prefer a flat tax system to a progressive one. I realize a flat tax system can be problematic.

both flat tax AND consumption tax hurt the poor and favor the rich. It's no wonder you favor them

Hmmmmm I thought it was Bismarck. Especially the social spending.

It is possible to have a progressive tax that is also simplified. The tax forms I fill out here are one page. There are very few things that can be deducted from your taxes (mostly to do with dependants -- infirm spouses and parents, children, etc.).

The tax rate goes up as you earn more. I currently pay 14% with the ceiling being 20% for someone who is making more than $320,000/year.

The rest of it is extremely simplified.

true for flat taxes, but not necessarily for consumption taxes.

nope. the driver behind the formation of the modern state was the emergence of modern warfare and the idea of a professional army/navy, which required a centralization of taxation and a rationalization of the state to accomidate that. bonaparte.

btw the statement is not a complete history of the modern state by any means. it just points to the central driver behind its emergence.

the poor spend close to 100% of their income on consumption, while the rich spend a far lower % on consumption. In that sense, it's regressive. In terms of dollars spent, then the rich are putting more into the tax pool. It's just a matter of perspective

If you took the time to read what I write you would know why I prefer a flat tax or a consumption tax over our current tax code. And, the primary point of this thread is to illustrate how our current tax policy is actually a benefit to the "rich" and consequently hurts everyone else.

And one more time - a flat tax or a consumption tax could be set up to exclude taxation on the poor or basic necessities. Why do you persist in ignoring this?

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

You pay 14%? So, if a person in your situation makes $60,000/yr. they simply owe $8,400? What about social security and medicare? that is about another 15%, half paid by you and half paid by your employer, or $9,000. You pay state tax, property tax, sales tax, your employer pays unemployment insurance tax. At some point in the tax code you lose the full benefit of day care for children, child tax credit, IRA deduction, mortgage interest deduction. There is ATM. If you have medical expenses they are subject to a floor for deduction as are things like work related expenses. then there is the education credits or deductions. The average person spends hundreds of dollars to have their taxes done. Then of course we have the benefit of paying taxes each pay period before we know what our tax obligation actually is, and if it is wrong you could be subject to a penalty. Then there is a guy out there doing exactly what you do, making the exact same income and legally paying less tax because they have their situation structured different than yours. I could go on, this just scratches the surface...simple indeed.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

Did you read the posts about our former Treasury Secretary? Simplified, the guy made a boat-load of money, legally did not pay taxes on it, legally will never have to pay taxes on it, but he can live like a king because he has the assets to do so. Under a consumption tax, he would pay taxes consistent with his lifestyle.

Well, RB, in the "on the one hand, on the other" category, give Napoleon credit for rationalizing European legal systems by instituting the Napoleonic Code, which is still used today in one form or another in most of the world.

I still think Bismarck is much more responsible for what national governments look like than Napoleon. Bureaucracy, centralization of decisionmaking, extension of the sphere of the state - all traceable to Otto. (Although you can trace a lot of the state-centric approach back to Catherine the Great. In theory there was divine right before that, but the sphere of the state was much smaller, certainly before Westphalia and even for a while after that.)

I agree with you that Napoleon certainly had his influences on later developments, but remember: he was a failure. As a model to be emulated by others that was the big flaw - what he created didn't work. His reign ended with Alexander marching down the Champs Elysee and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.

Then it's already not a level playing field

I don't care about your anecdotal example. Paying tax on 100% of your income (the poor) vs. a small % (the rich) is regressive

If we don't place a consumption tax on food purchases at a place like a grocery store, that would be level for everyone based on my assumption that people fulfill their basic food purchase needs at places like grocery stores. If a person fulfills their food consumption at a place like McDonald's off of the Dollar menu and they pay a x% that amount would be materially smaller than the guy who buys his food at a 5 star restaurant at the same percentage. And, in my view, don't give the guy eating at the 5 star restaurant an opportunity for a "business deduction".

I apologize for being so offensive, I did not know the true definition of the term.

who said offensive?

Actually a person earning $60,000 falls into a lower tax bracket. They only pay 8.5%. So their taxes for the year would be $5,100. There is no social saftey net here to speak of so there is no medicare, social security, etc. There is however a mandatory retirement scheme where you must put in a percentage of your earnings and your employer matches it (it's a sliding scale based on age and other things but roughly amounts to 10 to 14% by the employer and 14-20% by the employee). They comes directly off your payslip. Your taxes do not. You have the option to pay your taxes at the end of the fiscal year or to pay in interest free instalments throughout the following year.

There is also a consumption tax that is currently at 5%.

As I am not a citizen or a permanent resident, I do not have to contribute to the retirement scheme. I have a private one into which I contribute as much as I can.

Taxes are low. They are progressive. They are simplified to the extreme. This nation spends a lot (given its size) on its military and infrastructure and yet still has a sizable surplus. It's not perfect but it does show how a progressive tax can also be simple.

Flat taxes are not fair taxes.

In an ideal situation taxes should be directly correlated to the costs to society. Given that, those who create those costs should pay for them. In addition, I support general societal support through taxation for the needs of children, elderly, disabled and those in temporary need of assistance.

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

I did.

US Tresury misses out on about $4 billion
 

I saw this referenced in another forum and wanted to share it here.

Estate Tax Dormant, Billionaire?s Bequest Is Tax-Free - NYTimes.com

Two points, one the thought from the article that "rich" people might keep a person alive to avoid taxes...and some question if "rich" people would do things much simpler to avoid paying taxes.

Two, the folks in Congress had from 2001 to 2009 to fix this, and they did not. Democrats even had a super majority at one time and did not handle the issue, perhaps they need to have some more hearings, or I guess it is all Bush's fault anyway.

I love how you can talk about someone who has a 9 billion dollar net worth and use quotes around rich. He's "rich", you see, not just rich. It's those damn liberals who want to tax the 9 billion dollar man.. because they think he's "rich."

Well if it says anything to me, it's that rich people are well-versed (and usually well-advised) on how to maximize their wealth. That's the cool thing about wealth; you can usually make a number of decisions that will allow you to get the most out of your assets. You know, making them work for you.

tocqueville wrote in democracy in america that the single most important area of law for keeping the united states a democracy were those which taxed and otherwise redistributed inheritances.

he considered these fundamental because they prevented the formation of an economic aristocracy.

tocqueville understood equality of right and equality of condition (more or less on the second) to be the defining features of the democratic experiment in america.

writing about the 1830s, he already saw that capitalism, which was taking shape in the cities, was likely to erase american democracy (burden of the future), just as the residuum of protestant ideologies placed severe limits on freedom (burden of the past).

conservatives oppose the redistribution of inheritances.
funny, that.

I like this. If we tax death enough, fewer people will die. Makes perfect sense in an econ 101 kind of way.

It really is great that his family won't have to suffer with only $4+ billion. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I'm sure that all those folks who complain about welfare recipients doing zero work and benefiting at the expense of the American taxpayer will be really upset about this too because that's exactly what this dude's family is doing.

Nice preemptive trolling. I suspect the reason that nothing was done was that the US populace has become so passionately and reflexively anti tax that there aren't very many politicians with the political courage to raise taxes. Even taxes on dead people.

The term "rich" is il-defined and I have been using quotes from the start. It is symbolic of the slogan from liberals about the Bush tax cuts for the "rich". The primary point of my posts here is that the real "rich", like this guy, has options and they usually can manage their tax burden. The average working guy, who is often considered "rich" can not. Hence we get people like the small business owner constantly getting the shaft from liberal policy targeting the "rich"

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

This is the theme of supply-side economic tax policy. When high marginal tax rates are cut, taxes collected can often go up because people have less incentive to avoid taxes. "Rich" people have tax avoidance choices the rest of us don't have - so the thought of raising tax rates is often counter productive. Again, at a 100% marginal tax rate, most people will not put any effort into making an extra $1 compared to a 75%, 50%, 25%, or 0% marginal rate. There is an equilibrium point.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

I argue that what prevents a economic aristocracy is a free market capitalist system that allow all equally to maximize the value of their good and services in the market.

Estate taxes can easily be avoided. And when we look at wealth in this country, we find that new wealth is constantly being created. The wealth created by technology is totally different than the wealth created from industrialization.

I wonder who we should believe in matters of economics?

Persistence at putting something in air quotes does not somehow make a point. It just makes you look silly. Sorry, it makes you look "silly." It does seem a common rhetoric for conservatives to be worried that somehow tax cuts for the rich are terrible, like they'll ever be rich themselves.

Believe what is real, not theory.

Millions over the years migrated to this country because of the economic opportunity to succeed based on their skills/talents and what they had to offer in the market. People stay for the same reason.

In Tocqueville we are talking about a French aristocrat who developed his theories about the USA over 150 years ago, long before the USA becoming the greatest economic power in the world.


What I think is silly, is when there is a focus on minutia while ignoring broader much more compelling issues. You can read what is posted here and get lost in the use of "quotes"?