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"?