sycasey;842067668 said:

---

Okay, now we are getting somewhere productive. Good!

---

I've found that it usually takes a while for a forum discussoin to get past the usual insults. It's hard to fit in all the nuances of an argument when you are trying to type out an answer quickly.

Quote:

---

I suppose that is true, but at the end of the day if you're not for that kind of upward mobility, you are basically arguing for a highly stratified caste/feudal type of system, which I think most people (especially in America) would agree is not the ideal society for us.

---

The funny thing is that I'm a firm believer in the ideal that the government must do all it can to provide avenues for people to move from the poor classes into the middle and upper classes (which is something big business doesn't seem to like so the Republicans don't support this anymore.). However, it much do that without unjustly punishing the upper classes (which is what the Democrats seem to want to do most of the time.)

It's part of why I often have a very janudiced view of government and regulation. It's too easy to pretend that government power is this wonderful club that can be used to force open avenues by which the poor can become rich while all it really does is shake down certain groups of rich people and put money into the pockets of a few very well connected other rich people.

Quote:

---

I suppose these kinds of arguments sound a bit "off" to me, because as far as I know, federal income taxes in the US haven't been this low since the 1920s, and for the upper tax brackets it's extraordinarily low. So when I see people screaming bloody murder about Obama returning said taxes to the relatively modest rates of the Clinton administration, it just sounds silly to me.

---

It's true that the top marginal rates have dropped considerably, but those tax rates from the 1920's-1940's were also based on much different income levels. I beleive that back then the top rate didn't kick in until $1 million. With inflation that would now be $10 million or more. Now the top rates kick in at $400,000. I remember reading that there was one year where fewer than 20 people earned enough money to be in the top tax bracket in the US. Now we have... just a few more.

So its not a perfect comparison.

That said we also have the fact that businesses actually don't often pay the huge salaries they are accused of paying. The tax laws are rather punitive for salaries above $1 million (a legacy of earlier attempts to punish the rich.) Most executives are paid at least partly with stock options. Stock optoins that will be taxed as capital gains if they handle them properly. The high tax on those "earning" $400K will actually miss a good deal of their income, but neither party mentions that. Democrats just scream "tax the rich" and Republicans turn around and say "But you hurt small business."

Not conducive to good government.

Quote:

---

Maybe you have an idea of "ideal" tax rates that is even lower than historical norms. Perhaps you are right . . . but just know that I'm going to find that hard to swallow and will require a lot of convincing.

---

I don't expect to convince anyone, and I really don't see a good way to present the argument anyway. One of my hobbies has been to look at economic history. As I said, if you study world history you rarely find a tax that is more ornerous than 1 part in 5 (20%) and that is without any deductions or graduations. Here we argue over a top leve that takes 2 parts in 5 just for income tax at the top level. Then you have to add in Social Securty (6.6%, 13.2% if you are self-employed) Medicare taxes, state income taxes and if you are in CA, state unemployment and disability taxes. And that's just on the income. Add in propety taxes, sales taxes and some transaction taxes and just about anyone rich or poor is probably sending 40-50% of his income to the government via some kind of tax. It's unprecedenting if you look at economic history before 1900. It's really only in the last 50-70 years that governments attempted to claim so much of an economy. And I fear that it's not a safe path to tread long term.

But as for an "ideal rate". like I said, since the income tax was created the US has managed to have revenues that were between 18-21% of the total national GDP. It seems that at least for the US, we will likely never see revenues exceed that, no matter what the tax rates are. If that is true, we need an expert or group of experts to find a way to simplify the code while maintaining those revenue rates. That would be far more effective than playing at the margins, but would also be politically unacceptable to both sides.

However, it would also force massive cuts in spending because our national spending rate has been 25% of GDP for the past 4 years. You can't spend 25% more than you are taking in forever, which is part of why we hear cries for more taxes. The theory is to increase revenues to match the spending. It won't work, but at least its understandable.

Quote:

---

I just have to say . . . at this point you are sounding more reasonable than (IMO) you did earlier in the thread. A nuanced perspective always helps.

---

It's very hard to explain my position in a few paragraphs. And I've noticed that a few of my statements were easy to misinterpret, especially on an emotionally charged topic like this. This is a topic where I've tried to understand both sides and at least see, if not agree with the entirity of people's arguements. I still tend to feel that we have a government that tries to do too much, and that in doing so creates many of hte problems people here demand that it use money to solve.

But I don't have a solution and understand that right now the politically acceptable choices are all ones I worry will end up causing more harm. I just hope that eventually we'll see sanity from both parties and they start working for the common good of the nation rather than for parisan politican advantage.

GivemTheAxe;842067679 said:

---

IIRC the top 1% earn much more than 22.7% of the income in the US.
and the top 10% earn much more than 50% of he income in the US.
So your facts prove to me they are being UNDER-TAXED.

---

So, take 90% from them. That will run the government for what? an extra week? And, you will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg, along with the rest of the American way.

We will only get back to fiscal sanity when everyone pays at least something. Someone said taxes should hurt. But, it can't hurt those who don't pay and, what's worse, those who don't pay get stuff on top of it. If even the poorest paid (and don't think that they're all as poor as they claim) a dollar, they wouldn't be so quick to vote for someone who spent uncontrollably.

Originally Posted by Rushinbear
YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! (Yes, I'm shouting.). Everyone has access to roads and bridges and everyone has had a good teacher at least once in their life. If you were right, every Cal alum would be rolling in it. The difference is SACRIFICE and RISK.

Would you sacrifice to put in the mega hours and/or live below your means to get what you need to get started? Would you put that time and savings at risk to go for something that is a total flyer? Most won't. They want the guaranteed 35 hours for a steady paycheck. And, for that they want goodies that they can't afford and which our country can't afford.

Obama said, "You didn't build that" because he wants us to swallow that people above $50K didn't really earn it (yeah, I know the cut off is $400K, for now - you just wait.) and, therefore, he has every right to confiscate more and more of that which is above it. Mark my words.

We should be blessing the wealth creators. Instead, we are driving them out. And, what will we have left? 35 hour people whose jobs have gone bye-bye. I'm not rich and don't expect ever to be, but I'm eternally grateful that I live in a country that makes it possible for others to be (less so lately).

SNAP OUT OF IT!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]Perhaps you recognize this little passage:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Pay particular attention to that snippet about "promoting the general welfare" which most scholars and SC Justices use in determining the meaning of the Articles which follow. Do a little research on relative tax burdens on the rich and corporations in this country when compared to other industrialized societies around the world and you will learn that these groups have it FAT AND EASY here in the good ol' US of A !! Google OEDC rankings, if you don't agree. Of the 36 countries they rank, we are 34th in corporate tax rates. The tax code is severely slanted to the advantage of the rich. Even Soc. Sec. taxes end at $106K; far more regressive on the middle class, as are sales taxes and private property taxes, as a percentage of a person's income.

If you don't care about bringing more equity to the system, then move to the Caribbean, along with the money of Romney, et al.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

oldblue83;842067623 said:

---

What a sanctimonious crock M_Anus! What is "fair share" in your opinion?

If someone has higher income at the same rate, they pay more. That's how math works.... (right back at you with the self-righteousness). I don't think most higher income folks mind some degree of escalation in rates, but 60% + is absurd. And as for the "fair share" nonsense, explain this:


Taxes paid by highest incomes

The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.
Taxes paid by lowest incomes

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

---

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]The bottom 40% pay so little because in the past 30 years, their wages have stagnated. Those receiving "minimum wage" have seen an erosion of 30% of their purchasing power while the business community of "job creators" seek to hold down workers' wages in order to trim employee costs while increasing "the bottom line" !! The goal of corporate officers seems to be in growing stock prices and paying dividends rather than assuring their workers are adequately compensated and valued.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Ukrainian;842067749 said:

---

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]The bottom 40% pay so little because in the past 30 years, their wages have stagnated. Those receiving "minimum wage" have seen an erosion of 30% of their purchasing power while the business community of "job creators" seek to hold down workers' wages in order to trim employee costs while increasing "the bottom line" !! The goal of corporate officers seems to be in growing stock prices and paying dividends rather than assuring their workers are adequately compensated and valued.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

---

Ah yes, this old truism.

The funny thing is that what you said is 100% true, most corporate officers are far more concerned with stock price than workers.

the sad thing is that the reason corporate officers do that is the very tax laws and investment regulations you are pushing.

What so many people don't realize is that your average CEO is employed only as long as the major shareholders are happy. And that with the tax laws structured to punish dividend payouts through double taxatoin (taxed as corporate profits when the company earns then, and then taxed as personal income when paid out to investors.). Because of that double tax, many companes don't pay dividends anymore, so the major investment and retirement funds are only concerned with stock price. And since those funds often own a large proportion of a companies outstanding stock, they have a lot of clout when they demand hat the stock price increase constantly.

So that corporate officer has a choice, get the stock price to climb or end up on the unemployment line. And investment funds have a very short window they look at. From what I've seen none look at more than "what did the company do in the last 12 months."

Worker morale means nothing then because the pursuit of improving the morale of workers means almost certain terminatoin of your career as a CEO.

But it's easy to blame the CEO's rather than to realize that they are only doing all they can to keep their jobs.

What an engaging "discussion" this is.

As we also "discuss," in other threads, about the new committed Cal footballers, who already have learned that they are playing in a sport that is only successful because of teamwork, because of "having each others' back," but who have singularly indicated their commitment hinged on the value of a Cal education (=in all that that implies)

Well, I believe we alums have proved the latter pointto these kids....

:gobears:

mvargus;842067751 said:

---

Ah yes, this old truism.

The funny thing is that what you said is 100% true, most corporate officers are far more concerned with stock price than workers.

the sad thing is that the reason corporate officers do that is the very tax laws and investment regulations you are pushing.

What so many people don't realize is that your average CEO is employed only as long as the major shareholders are happy. And that with the tax laws structured to punish dividend payouts through double taxatoin (taxed as corporate profits when the company earns then, and then taxed as personal income when paid out to investors.). Because of that double tax, many companes don't pay dividends anymore, so the major investment and retirement funds are only concerned with stock price. And since those funds often own a large proportion of a companies outstanding stock, they have a lot of clout when they demand hat the stock price increase constantly.

So that corporate officer has a choice, get the stock price to climb or end up on the unemployment line. And investment funds have a very short window they look at. From what I've seen none look at more than "what did the company do in the last 12 months."

Worker morale means nothing then because the pursuit of improving the morale of workers means almost certain terminatoin of your career as a CEO.

But it's easy to blame the CEO's rather than to realize that they are only doing all they can to keep their jobs.

---

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]CEO compensation has risen astronomically as compared to the common worker. Certain political groups are doing the bidding to outlaw or diminish the influence of unions ... the only organizations truly concerned with the welfare of the workers. Pay has been reduced, with threats (and actions) to move companies to "right to work" states (read: right to work for LESS) or to foreign shores, taking advantages of abject poverty and a near slave labor workforce.

Failing to pay workers a liveable wage leads to the consequences you so adamantly decry. While CEO's perform their primary functions: maximizing profits and increasing stock prices (often to the detriment of the workers who supply the improved productivity and sweat), they continue to squeeze working families who can't afford adequate healthcare, find affordable day care, or have any assurance that their job will be there the next day. They have diminished protections assuring any benefits. If you pay poverty-level wages, more people fall off the Federal tax rolls. Government safety nets are put in a position to provide the services for which corporations are shirking responsibility.

What strikes me about all of these "capitalists" in corporations and on Wall Street is that they want to PRIVATIZE PROFITS, but should their excesses lead to trouble, they look to the GOVERNMENT TO SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES, through public loans and bailouts !! They have no problem with SOCIALISM as long as it saves their bacon, with no strings attached. [/COLOR][/SIZE]

:rant

Rushinbear;842067738 said:

---

If you think that Obama's goal was simply to get the top tax rate up to 39.6%, you're naive. That's just the start. During the campaign, someone asked him what percentage "fair share" amounted to. He double talked for 3 minutes and never answered the question. Reason? Like Eugene Debs, when asked what his union wanted, he wants "more." Obama's already announced that he's going for another round of increases and it won't be against the top earners alone. You'll see.

---

My position is that there is nothing Obama's history as a politician suggesting that he favors anything as extreme as you describe. If your argument is that he "will" do it on some unspecified future date . . . well, I suppose I cannot argue against something that hasn't happened. On the other hand, you also don't have any real proof here, just supposition. All we know is what he has actually proposed, which is nothing radical.

Rushinbear;842067738 said:

---

And, what do you think was Obama's purpose in that "you didn't build that" speech? Do you think he just said that to say it? Do you think it was a mistake and that he went off script (which in itself would be damning)? Do you think that he said that just to defend himself against the criticism about waging class warfare? Wake up. He's trying to soften us up, in a hundred little ways, and this was one of them.

---

Honestly? Yes I do think he said that to defend himself against the outsized criticism he's received since he stepped into office. Again, there is nothing in his actual words that is radical; it's only your supposition of what he "really" means that sounds nuts.

You know what that sounds like to me? Like you are a conspiracy theorist who won't be swayed by actual facts.

Rushinbear;842067738 said:

---

By the way, I noticed that you didn't respond to the issues of sacrifice and risk. Why is it that everyone is benefitted by the same Social Contract but only a few sacrifice and put themselves at risk for higher achievement? Is it because the rest choose not to? If that were true, then why are so many falling for the demonization of the rich propaganda? Face it: they want it but they don't want to do what it takes to get it and Obama is there for them with some "there, there" in return for their votes.

---

Lots of people sacrifice and take risks. Not all of them become successful. The safety net is there so that when your risk fails you don't wind up out on the street. The Social Contract does not promise everyone great wealth, only a basic expected level of subsistence. Either way people still have to work hard to achieve above and beyond.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266830/Tiger-Woods-admits-left-California-tax-rates.html

"I moved out of here back in '96 for that reason ... I enjoy Florida, but also I understand what he was, I think, trying to say."

There's two gone and their tens of millions in tax revenue. I know it's only anecdotal, but I'm sure they're the only two that left the state because of taxes, right? /sarcasm

Ukrainian;842067748 said:

---

Originally Posted by Rushinbear
YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! (Yes, I'm shouting.). Everyone has access to roads and bridges and everyone has had a good teacher at least once in their life. If you were right, every Cal alum would be rolling in it. The difference is SACRIFICE and RISK.

Would you sacrifice to put in the mega hours and/or live below your means to get what you need to get started? Would you put that time and savings at risk to go for something that is a total flyer? Most won't. They want the guaranteed 35 hours for a steady paycheck. And, for that they want goodies that they can't afford and which our country can't afford.

Obama said, "You didn't build that" because he wants us to swallow that people above $50K didn't really earn it (yeah, I know the cut off is $400K, for now - you just wait.) and, therefore, he has every right to confiscate more and more of that which is above it. Mark my words.

We should be blessing the wealth creators. Instead, we are driving them out. And, what will we have left? 35 hour people whose jobs have gone bye-bye. I'm not rich and don't expect ever to be, but I'm eternally grateful that I live in a country that makes it possible for others to be (less so lately).

SNAP OUT OF IT!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]Perhaps you recognize this little passage:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Pay particular attention to that snippet about "promoting the general welfare" which most scholars and SC Justices use in determining the meaning of the Articles which follow. Do a little research on relative tax burdens on the rich and corporations in this country when compared to other industrialized societies around the world and you will learn that these groups have it FAT AND EASY here in the good ol' US of A !! Google OEDC rankings, if you don't agree. Of the 36 countries they rank, we are 34th in corporate tax rates. The tax code is severely slanted to the advantage of the rich. Even Soc. Sec. taxes end at $106K; far more regressive on the middle class, as are sales taxes and private property taxes, as a percentage of a person's income.

If you don't care about bringing more equity to the system, then move to the Caribbean, along with the money of Romney, et al.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

---

Ukrainian: so, what's the "fair share" to you? What would be the percentage amount that would do it as far as you're concerned? (Nice try on the question avoidance, by the way.).

Thomas Jefferson said it well, "The natural progression of things is for liberty to give way and for government to gain ground." It's not so much the snapshot of today that I care about. It's the little-by-little erosion of our system.

sycasey;842067348 said:

---

Thirdly, the Congress he's had to deal with since the last mid-term has been, legitimately, the most do-nothing Congress in a long time. When the legislative branch is that entrenched, Executive Orders are the only way to get anything done.

---

There's nothing like a good joke to start the day......thanks guys for the laugher. A do nothing congress who have submitted dozens of bugets to a senate that hasn't adopted a buget in over a 1000 days? You should get your facts straight before you show how stupid you two are.....stop drinking the kool aid. GO BEARS!!!

Ukrainian;842067774 said:

---

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]CEO compensation has risen astronomically as compared to the common worker. Certain political groups are doing the bidding to outlaw or diminish the influence of unions ... the only organizations truly concerned with the welfare of the workers. Pay has been reduced, with threats (and actions) to move companies to "right to work" states (read: right to work for LESS) or to foreign shores, taking advantages of abject poverty and a near slave labor workforce.

---

Interestng, even if it ignored my response almost completely.

Yes companies are doing everything you are complaining about. But what you are ignoring is 2 parts.

1) Most CEO's receive the vast majority of their compensation as stocks or stock options, this is done to avoid some rater hefty taxes that kick in if executive salaries are over $1 million. So when you say a CEO received a huge compensation package, you are usually seeing a CEO who got the stock price to soar during his tenure and "earned" his money through the exercise of the options. And since in the modern business world driving up stock price tends to lead to spirals of upward price growth CEO pay has gone up far faster than worker pay, especially since part of the way to get the stock price to rise is to hold down worker pay.

In short, that whole situation is the result of the current tax laws, its a feature, not a bug.

2) If a CEO didn't work to drive up stock prices and to basicaly "exploit" labor, he'd be fired. Many only last 1-2 years becuase of he intense pressure to get the stock price to skyrocket. It's ugly and has resulted in some very ugly business decisions being made, but again. That's a feature of current law, not a bug.

Quote:

---

Failing to pay workers a liveable wage leads to the consequences you so adamantly decry. While CEO's perform their primary functions: maximizing profits and increasing stock prices (often to the detriment of the workers who supply the improved productivity and sweat), they continue to squeeze working families who can't afford adequate healthcare, find affordable day care, or have any assurance that their job will be there the next day. They have diminished protections assuring any benefits. If you pay poverty-level wages, more people fall off the Federal tax rolls. Government safety nets are put in a position to provide the services for which corporations are shirking responsibility.

---

corporations have one and only one "responsibility" and that is to maximze the returns to their investors. Despite constant cries for "corporate social responsibility" in the long run...

The business of business is business.

Corporations cannot be held responsible for the lives of anyone who doesn't work for them, or for what happens to someone working for htem when they aren't at work. I doubt you take personal responsibility for your coworkers, firends, or even yourr children. After all, if your child goes and bulliies a kid a yaer younger to do punish yourself by groudning yourself and sending yourself to be without supper? Why do you demand that businesses be responsibile for something they have very little control over?

It's not exactly "just", but the funny thing is the best way to fix this isn't with increasing taxes on teh "rich". If you want to solve this one, open up opportunity for small businesses and then prevent the GE's and ATTs of the world from using government to keep the small businesses from thriving. A huge part of hte very problem you complain about came about only after business became powerful enough to drive out the small businesses. Small businesses pay more, are far more forgiving of workers and tend to have management willing to take a long view of the business.

But the tax laws currently drive out small business and the big businesses love it. The scary thing is once again the problem is a feature of the tax laws, not a glitch.

Quote:

---

What strikes me about all of these "capitalists" in corporations and on Wall Street is that they want to PRIVATIZE PROFITS, but should their excesses lead to trouble, they look to the GOVERNMENT TO SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES, through public loans and bailouts !! They have no problem with SOCIALISM as long as it saves their bacon, with no strings attached. [/COLOR][/SIZE]:rant

---

I absolutely hated the bailouts and still do. If you've paid attention I am anti-government subsidy of any business.

but I also understand that the bailout of the banks was not only inevitable, but is now a permanent feature of the economy. The US owes too much money to the world. The only way it can keep afloat economically is to allow all of the default swaps and derrivatives that helped create the 2008 crash to exist and to promise the banks that should they end up in a bad situation, the government will rescue them again. Without that, there would not be enough money in existance to purchase all of hte government debt issued in a year.

It's a nasty situation. Neither party will admit it, but D.C. owes so much to the banks that the bank can dictate terms and they do on a regular basis. The only people who get hurt are the poor and middle classes who don't have a seat at the negotiation tables. They don't have the money to participate.

And don't believe that unions really have the plight of hte poor on their minds. The officials are almost always only looking for new ways to siphon more money into their own pockets. In their own way they are CEOs too. Just a bit more sneaky about their motives and purpose.

uchighlander;842067815 said:

---

There's nothing like a good joke to start the day......thanks guys for the laugher. A do nothing congress who have submitted dozens of bugets to a senate that hasn't adopted a buget in over a 1000 days? You should get your facts straight before you show how stupid you two are.....stop drinking the kool aid. GO BEARS!!!

---

Last I checked the Senate is still part of Congress, so if the Senate hasn't passed something that means Congress hasn't passed something. The two houses need to work together to find something that is agreeable to both, otherwise a bill never reaches Obama's desk.

But thanks for raising the level of discourse by calling me and other people stupid.

uchighlander;842067815 said:

---

There's nothing like a good joke to start the day......thanks guys for the laugher. A do nothing congress who have submitted dozens of bugets to a senate that hasn't adopted a buget in over a 1000 days? You should get your facts straight before you show how stupid you two are.....stop drinking the kool aid. GO BEARS!!!

---

Actually, the joke is on you. Do you think for one second the Senate would pass a budget drafted by Paul Ryan - a guy who idolizes Ayn Rand? A guy who wants to voucher-ize Medicare? I mean are you that politically tone deaf?

This is why the Republican Party is bankrupt. They have no ideas, only blame.

On government spending: this is the real beauty. Government spending, per capita, for federal, state and local levels has actually declined under President Obama.

Under Clinton? It increased +$967. Under Bush 43? It increased +$3,336. Under President Obama? It stands at -$80. So Repubs - you have no leg to stand on in terms of out of control government spending. What we have isn't a spending problem. That's under control. What we have is Republicans not wanting to pay bills they themselves were largely responsible for running up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/magazine/income-inequality.html?src=recg






latest readers comment, ...



"Davidson lays out the debate among economists about why the U.S. has such a huge income gap, but ends on a wrong note. He writes that economists disagree about "which policy is the right one" to address inequality, but then asks "What do we value more: growth or fairness?" This is a false choice. The US experienced its most sustained and rapid growth during the 3 decades following WW2, a period that also saw a dramatic increase in the standard of living and a sharp decline in income equality. Likewise, other affluent nations including Germany and Scandinavian countries have much less inequality than the US, a higher living standard for working familes, and faster growth. The same day that Davidson's article appeared in the magazine, Joseph Stiglitz's essay, "Inequality Is Holding Back Recovery," showed up in the Times' Sunday Review. In its Oct. 12, 1974 issue, Business Week claimed: "It will be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow - the idea of doing with less so that big business can have moreNothing that this nation, or any other nation, has done in modern economic history compares with the selling job that must be done to make people accept this reality." Since then, as Jeff Madrick documented in Age of Greed (2011), several generations of corporate-friendly conservative economists had tried to persuade us that we can't have both growth and equality, but Davidson shouldn't fall for this propaganda. Economic prosperity and more equality go hand-in-hand. "







-





:Monty

AU_Bears;842067777 said:

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266830/Tiger-Woods-admits-left-California-tax-rates.html

"I moved out of here back in '96 for that reason ... I enjoy Florida, but also I understand what he was, I think, trying to say."

There's two gone and their tens of millions in tax revenue. I know it's only anecdotal, but I'm sure they're the only two that left the state because of taxes, right? /sarcasm

---

Instead of "celebrating" this Furd Alum and this ASU alum who have now put on the record "what's more important to them," I'd rather celebrate "the value set" of Cal Alum and 3x NBA All-Star Kevin Johnson, who is still in The Arena, in a second career, as Sacramento, CALIFORNIA's Mayor.

:gobears:

manus;842067874 said:

---

Instead of "celebrating" this Furd Alum and this ASU alum who have now put on the record "what's more important to them," I'd rather celebrate "the value set" of Cal Alum and 3x NBA All-Star Kevin Johnson, who is still in The Arena, in a second career, as Sacramento, CALIFORNIA's Mayor.

:gobears:

---

Um, okay, you do that.

...your ticket is ready.

GivemTheAxe;842067679 said:

---

IIRC the top 1% earn much more than 22.7% of the income in the US.
and the top 10% earn much more than 50% of he income in the US.
So your facts prove to me they are being UNDER-TAXED.

---

You should check your recollection against facts. According to wikipedia the top 1% earned around 17% in 2007, and the top 20% earned 35%. I don't know where the top 10% would fall, but somewhere in between 17% and 35% so certainly less than 50%. I do think that capital gains comprises a larger portion of top earners in any given year, in part because people get rich selling companies, in part because there are people living off investment income generated from assets created by building businesses in the past or inheriting wealth from someone who did.

I tend to think that having a favorable capital gains rate encourages investment in capital assets but don't know if the delta currently between capital gains and income tax puts us in the correct spot on the curve. Like others mentioned here, I think our tax code should be structured so as to grow the pie, not to be punitive and not with the purpose of redistributing wealth.

Bringing it back to the original topic of this thread, I don't think looking at any individual's decision to stay in CA or the US or leave is helpful in a vacuum. Obviously the legislators (and unfortunately because of our crazy prop system, CA voters) need to be aware of the results from raising taxes. For example, pretty sure the reason tobacco taxes are so high is to discourage people from smoking - not to increase revenues. I would hope that we never get to the point where we pass taxes to discourage people from earning additional income and don't think we're anywhere close to that, but we may be close to the point in CA where we are encouraging too many individuals to leave the state and doing our economy a disservice.

sycasey;842067827 said:

---

Last I checked the Senate is still part of Congress, so if the Senate hasn't passed something that means Congress hasn't passed something. The two houses need to work together to find something that is agreeable to both, otherwise a bill never reaches Obama's desk.

But thanks for raising the level of discourse by calling me and other people stupid.

---

I guess you need to tell that to Obama who constantly refers to that" Republican controlled congress". Last time I checked the Democrats controled the Senate. GO BEARS!!!

uchighlander;842067948 said:

---

I guess you need to tell that to Obama who constantly refers to that" Republican controlled congress". Last time I checked the Democrats controled the Senate. GO BEARS!!!

---

I'm not specifically blaming either party here, only saying that Congress (as a whole) has legitimately done very little during Obama's term as President.

However, if you want to know my opinion, I think the Congressional Republicans (at this moment) are significantly more entrenched and inflexible than the Democrats and are at the root of the gridlock. It hasn't always been this way, and they don't deserve 100% of the blame, but right now they are the problem.

Rushinbear;842067784 said:

---

Ukrainian: so, what's the "fair share" to you? What would be the percentage amount that would do it as far as you're concerned? (Nice try on the question avoidance, by the way.).
Thomas Jefferson said it well, "The natural progression of things is for liberty to give way and for government to gain ground." It's not so much the snapshot of today that I care about. It's the little-by-little erosion of our system.

---

Good grief. As you know the economy played a major role in the 2012 presidential campaign; however, politicians make economics more confusing than economists do. They simplify important and complex issues out of expediency.

Last October (2012) members of the University of San Francisco's (USF) economics department---with political viewpoints spanning left to right---identified and published (in SF Gate) five (5) of the most glaring economic myths in the 2012campaign. Here are 2 excerpted "myths":

Myth #1: The president has a large influence over the economy.
Presidents are quick to take credit for good economic times. This makes it tempting to blame them for bad times. President Clinton took credit for an economic boom driven by Internet technologies and the natural recovery of the business cycle. Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush lost second-term elections due to factors largely due to economic factors beyond their control.

The truth is presidents have a limited and indirect influence over the economy. The policies at their disposal which affect variables like unemployment take years to work.

If any single individual can be said to "control" the economy, it is the chairman of the Federal Reserve, whose influence over interest rates is deliberately chartered to operate independently of political parties.

Myth #2: Raising taxes on the rich would hurt economic growth.
In truth, there is little evidence that marginally raising taxes on high incomes impedes economic growth.

In the relatively tranquil days of the 1950's American economy the marginal tax rates for incomes above $300,000 were 91 percent (yes, 91%). Compare that with a top rate of 35 percent (35%) for top brackets 2012.

The UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez suggests that returning top marginal rates to the Reagan-era 50 percent (yes, 50%) would be unlikely to reduce American prosperity.

In our globalized economy, "the rich" have more and better ways of avoiding taxes so any increase in top tax rates would require closing tax-evasion loopholes. "Close those costly tax loopholes". You should be demanding it, but it will come to pass.

Otherwise, you might do better to consider the Finland economic model where "[U]everyone[/U]" pays a full forty percent (40%) tax rate. For this every person is guaranteed healthcare for life, a full college and professional education, plus all the infrastructure. They might even throw in a Nokia phone.

:beer:

Rushinbear;842067741 said:

---

What's the "fair share" to you? What percentage would be enough? I guarantee it would be less than Obama's number, except you will never get a number out of him. He just wants "more."

---

What's fair share to you? Both sides would be stupid to throw out a number. The reality is the number is going to be determined by the situation and it is going to be higher than conservatives (and people like me probably) would like. Maybe they should have thought about that as they were spending all of that money in Iraq.


I will tell you this much:

It wasn't my lobbyists applying pressure to Congress. It wasn't me attending expensive dinners with the President(s). It was Big Oil, Big Pharma, US Automakers, Defense Contractors, Beltway Bandits, and Wall Street. Maybe the little guy got a say through the Unions (which many want to abolish) but the majority of us are not in a union.


The Special Interests got what they wanted and now they expect the bill to be repaid equitably?

dimitrig;842068031 said:

---

I will tell you this much:

It wasn't my lobbyists applying pressure to Congress. It wasn't me attending expensive dinners with the President(s). It was Big Oil, Big Pharma, US Automakers, Defense Contractors, Beltway Bandits, and Wall Street. Maybe the little guy got a say through the Unions (which many want to abolish) but the majority of us are not in a union.


The Special Interests got what they wanted and now they expect the bill to be repaid equitably?

---

Heck, even Speaker Boehner is fed up with the Congressional Tea Party members acting as obstructionist. This from their own party.

Boehner fed up with obstruction by tea party GOP Reps

BTW, Nate Silver calls "independents" closeted GOP. You know your party sucks if you have to closet yourself.

mvargus;842067742 said:

---

Add in propety taxes, sales taxes and some transaction taxes and just about anyone rich or poor is probably sending 40-50% of his income to the government via some kind of tax. It's unprecedenting if you look at economic history before 1900. It's really only in the last 50-70 years that governments attempted to claim so much of an economy. And I fear that it's not a safe path to tread long term.

---

We don't really want to go back to the level of government services that existed pre-1900, though, do we?

beelzebear;842068039 said:

---

Heck, even Speaker Boehner is fed up with the Congressional Tea Party members acting as obstructionist. This from their own party.

Boehner fed up with obstruction by tea party GOP Reps

---

I really, really hope that this is true.

dimitrig;842068047 said:

---

We don't really want to go back to the level of government services that existed pre-1900, though, do we?

---

True, the level of government services back then was not exactly sufficient to allow the kind of strong economy we have had.

And that is the major problem. As we have 2 opposing forces/situations.

1) the current spending system is not sustainable and in truth there is no level of taxation we can set that would collect enough money to sustain it.

2) cutting spending will mean cutting programs that do attempt to provide a life to many who would otherwise exist in misery.

It's almost a "choose your poison" situation. Although I admit, I fear that pushing the first problem too far and you'll wind up seeing even greater cuts in the future. There have already been hints of that with SS and Medicare as any attempt to bring reforming these programs into a discussion quickly brings for the hue and cry that the cuts will devestate those currently receiving benefits (even if the reforms are clearly stated to only take effect in 20 years. and on people currently not receiving benefits.)

However, there is a bigger problem in my mind. In an earlier post you talked about how the period from 1945-1970's saw the US see truly impressive growth ni manufacturing.

True, but......

Could something significant have happened that year?
Perhaps the ending of something that changed the world?
No, not the death of FDR, as he's a somebody not a something...
No, not the ending of Winston Churchill's government...
Ah! I remember, its the year that WW2 came to an end.

You know, that horrible 5+ year slaughter fest, one that ended up gathering up just about every major industrial nation and putting them at odds.

Think for a minute, what was one outcome....

Germany - factories and industries destroyed, a generation of young men dead
France - bombed into submission twice, factories destroyed
UK - factories in the southern part of the nation destroyed, merchant shipping vital for bringing in raw materials to keep factories running sunk by U-boats
Italy - factories and industries destroyed.
China - factories stripped by Japan during invasion
Japan - 2 major factory cities hit by nuclear weapons, capital of Tokyo firebombed and destroyed.
USA - only major industrual power to come through almost completely untouched.

So in 1946 if you wanted a car, where could you go? The USA
if you wanted a boat, where could you go? The USA
if you wanted earthmoving equipment where could you go? The USA
IF you needed machines to make those machines where could you go?...... (now lets not always see the same hands.. :p )

In 1946 probably 80-90% of all functioning industry was in the US, and the US was the place to go for the machines required to rebuild. Of course we saw years of sustained growth and massive profits. The US was effectively the monoploy supplier of heavy equipment for the next 20 years.

But those 20=25 years are economic aberrations. They could only happen becaues of the damage WW2 did to all the other major industrial nations. It is extremely unlikely we will ever see that occur a second time in our lifetimes.

So you cannot use those years to justify current policy. The economic climate is vastly different and hoping iwhat worked in 1950 will work today is a recipe for disaster. (not that both parties aren't doing just that.)

"You know, that horrible 5+ year slaughter fest, one that ended up gathering up just about every major industrial nation and putting them at odds."

Let's see ... we've ended one very expensive (lives/$) war of choice and have another one winding down ... long wars, unfunded (omg, expect the wealthy to pay and the sons of the wealthy to serve ... :p) ... seems the DoD with super-expensive, unwanted, unneeded, vastly over-budget projects might be a place to do serious budget trimming.
Tax all income the same, cap deductions or eliminate them (non-cash "charities", "religious" deductions, mortgage interest, 2nd and 3rd and 4th homes <sorry, Phil>) and there could be huge spending cuts and revenue gains.

Rushinbear;842067738 said:

---

And, what do you think was Obama's purpose in that "you didn't build that" speech? Do you think he just said that to say it? Do you think it was a mistake and that he went off script (which in itself would be damning)? Do you think that he said that just to defend himself against the criticism about waging class warfare? Wake up. He's trying to soften us up, in a hundred little ways, and this was one of them.

---

His purpose was to make the same point that Elizabeth Warren made a little better, and Romney made in a speech a couple weeks later - entrepreneurs don't build things all on their own, they use mentors, investment and public infrastructure. Stop being stupid.

BearyWhite;842068295 said:

---

His purpose was to make the same point that Elizabeth Warren made a little better, and Romney made in a speech a couple weeks later - entrepreneurs don't build things all on their own, they use mentors, investment and public infrastructure. Stop being stupid.

---

I keep seeing people on your side of the equation, for the most part using "stupid", or strongly imploring "stupid" against anyone who disagrees with them. Sorry, I don't need to call you names. You are a fellow Cal grad, which is maybe the only reason why we are on together here, but why the nasty....

Stupid to me is incurring debt that you and I have no vision of how to pay, but we both pass it on to someone else. Entrepreneurs have created more than Obama will ever create, but are accused of self interest. Self interest creates and does enrich those who create. Government but takes from one and gives to the "collective". What about your man? Getting re-elected was not self interest? Attacking Wall Street, corporate America, rich people, etc. is not lobbyists of some sort, but unions, public and private are not? C'mon, even in your superior intellectuality there must be some sense of fairness. And when those who are entrepreneurs use infrastructure should they be embarrassed? They, for the most part, paid for those infrastructure improvements. Why not?

OdontoBear66;842068350 said:

---

I keep seeing people on your side of the equation, for the most part using "stupid", or strongly imploring "stupid" against anyone who disagrees with them. Sorry, I don't need to call you names. You are a fellow Cal grad, which is maybe the only reason why we are on together here, but why the nasty....

Stupid to me is incurring debt that you and I have no vision of how to pay, but we both pass it on to someone else. Entrepreneurs have created more than Obama will ever create, but are accused of self interest. Self interest creates and does enrich those who create. Government but takes from one and gives to the "collective". What about your man? Getting re-elected was not self interest? Attacking Wall Street, corporate America, rich people, etc. is not lobbyists of some sort, but unions, public and private are not? C'mon, even in your superior intellectuality there must be some sense of fairness. And when those who are entrepreneurs use infrastructure should they be embarrassed? They, for the most part, paid for those infrastructure improvements. Why not?

---

Earth to Mars...hel-lo-o!
Most entrepreneurs don't create.
They roll the dice, look around, pass the cost to endusers and "facilitate" (gamble) at best.
Most are middlemen who don't even have a clue.
Get a clue.

Go Bears!
:beer:

OdontoBear66;842068350 said:

---

I keep seeing people on your side of the equation, for the most part using "stupid", or strongly imploring "stupid" against anyone who disagrees with them.

---

Have you been reading this thread? Two posters called me stupid, and they certainly weren't liberals.

I think Phil was an idiot for bringing this up. Does he want to run for office, or does he think anyone really cares about his worries about taxes?

Lots of wealthy folks will continue to live in California if they can. But that does not mean that they will work in California. For example, Hollywood continues to shoot in lower cost, lower tax areas. Athletes are moving out of state, etc. Taxes do have consequences. For most folks who work for someone else, the consequences are not worth moving. For one who owns the businesses they will try to avoid taxes as best they can. That is just smart thinking, not evil or any sort of scheming. Anyone who has a sizable income will try to determine an appropriate tax management strategy.

I think what is difficult for folks, particularly people who have worked to build a business, is what the government is doing to those folks - not just from a tax perspective, but from a regulatory perspective, from a benefits perspective (health care, leave laws, lay-off laws, work comp, etc). On an individual basis, one may say, yes, that particular law makes sense. But in the aggregate, the cost of the regulations is beginning to get huge. And the average employee has no idea of the costs that are being borne by the employer/owner. It is not transparent, and therefore there is not appreciation. The legislature (Feds, state, city (SF - Wow!)) are continuing to put lots of barriers to entry to business development which stifles growth. Eventually it will hurt more than we know.

The other thing that is galling is that many of these laws are not simply just helping out folks when they are down, but it is a concerted effort by advocacy groups to call on the state legislature to give, give, give. There is no hearing where there are not 50 groups lining up in Sacramento on virtually any issue. These are not laws for the most part that they are passing. These are simply transfers of one persons suffering to someone else, who may or may not be better able to handle the issue.

The legislature is picking winners and losers, and at this time, the winners are the poor. Perhaps that is OK. But, for example, on health reform, the cost of the new health plans effective January next year will be about 20 - 50% higher than the current rates for most people. That is due to added benefits that will be mandated by the new exchange / federal law. For those who are below certain percentage of poverty (400% of FPL, or about $88,000 for a family of 4) there will be some subsidies. For those over that level, there will be no subsidy - just an increase in health care costs of about $10000 for a family of four for the same plans. For an employer, who wants to continue to offer coverage, they will start to reduce salaries for new employees, start to eliminate raises, etc. There is only so much money in the system.

Clearly there were problems in the health care system. But the law as it is will not help address the biggest problem, which is affordability for the vast majority of folks.

Meanwhile, the public employees are higher paid, with better benefits, paid for by the folks who are getting squeezed.

So that is what the concern is. Anyone who thinks that this is not a concern is just not paying attention. Most employers have a responsibility to their employee - but that is not unlimited, and if the costs of doing business are too oppressive, they will move. And that is good for no one. This is from a life-long democrat who is concerned about our state, and who makes a decent living and is not too worried about taxes personally. But I see the greed in Sacramento continuously, buying votes by giving handouts to advocacy groups and unions, and hurting the small businesses, which are the lifeblood of the state.

beelzebear;842068039 said:

---

Heck, even Speaker Boehner is fed up with the Congressional Tea Party members acting as obstructionist. This from their own party.

Boehner fed up with obstruction by tea party GOP Reps

BTW, Nate Silver calls "independents" closeted GOP. You know your party sucks if you have to closet yourself.

---

This article is dated January 2012.

OdontoBear66;842068350 said:

---

I keep seeing people on your side of the equation, for the most part using "stupid", or strongly imploring "stupid" against anyone who disagrees with them. Sorry, I don't need to call you names. You are a fellow Cal grad, which is maybe the only reason why we are on together here, but why the nasty....

---

It's not at all true that it's just one "side of the equation" who engages in name-calling but you're right, I shouldn't have said that. The distortion about Obama's "didn't build that" quote is dishonest, not stupid. In the coming years the GOP will look back on using that as their 2012 convention slogan with embarrassment.