How America Soaks the Affluent

24,172 Views | 262 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by going4roses
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I think we need to start by taxing corporations again. I used to be a fan of very low taxes for corporations on the assumption that the taxes are better born by stockholders but in reality ~40% of US corps are foreign-held and we are essentially giving foreign nationals tax breaks for no good reason. We should unwind Trump's corporate tax cuts and go from there.

Although I tend to agree with you, that's a slippery slope given that U.S. multinational corporations see 43% of their overseas profits come from three low-tax countries: The Netherlands, Ireland, and Luxembourg. Add in the UK and Bermuda and that net income as a share of total climbs to 59%

Despite the enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which reduced these "incentives", current rules still encourage US multinational firms to earn and report profits in low-tax foreign countries., enable both US and foreign based firms to shift profits earned in the U.S. to other countries, and encourage companies to incorporate in foreign jurisdictions.

It's obviously a complicated slippery slope.


What are the consequences of the new US international tax system? | Tax Policy Center




Globalization is a big, complicated issue. Biden originally tried to get everyone on board with some type of minimum tax and that just didn't work. Unit 2 and Wags may have valid point, but:

I don't think there is the political will in the US to increase taxes on domestic corporations. It is domestic jobs before anything else in this country for both parties. Trump changed the narrative and made economic nationalism the centerpiece. If anything, watch Biden figure out ways to reduce effective tax rates for US corporations or their products, like what he did with tax credits on US produced electric cars.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Cal88 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:




This is the kind of income I am talking about
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989.


So if you are concerned about the growth of CEO and C-suite pay, what kind of corporate governance change do you propose?

A similar analogy would be the "arms" race that we see with D-1 football teams constantly upgrading practice facilities, stadiums, weight rooms, and now offering NIL money. Why would the NCAA go about "restricting" that? They clearly havent.

Publicly traded companies have compensation committees.
They set the compensation of their Executives based on other executives pay in the same industry.
Clearly it's been an arms race over the years.

Sounds like you want some kind of government regulation?

How would you do that?
Based on what metrics?

At the end of the day, it is the SHAREHOLDERS that wind up voting on these pay packages.
Is that not a democratic solution by the people most impacted by CEO compensation?

Why should you care how much USC or Texas spends on their football program?
Why should you care how much shareholders (ultimately) decide on what to pay their CEO?


Universities could easily put restrictions on coaches salaries, by imposing salary caps for example, the same way they cap the payroll of players in the NFL. This is a good case where common sense is trumped by the American worship of free market ideology.

For the CEOs and people with stratospheric incomes, a much higher and progressive tax rate would easily address that issue.

Salaries for American CEOs have greatly outstripped those from other leading industrialized nations. In countries like Japan or Germany for instance, the CEO packages are much lower mostly due to cultural norms, American levels of compensation would be socially unacceptable there.
Candidly, there isn't anything I agree with, think is realistic, accurate or legal.

The coaching cap violates State and Federal anti-trust laws With players caps there is an exemption due to collective bargaining agreement with a players union. Good luck on getting head college football coaches to organize. If anything, salaries are going the other direction because the money is so big and they're in competition from the NFL for top coaches. Not gonna happen.

Moving past athletics, capping salaries by groups of employers is a per se anti-trust violation. My guess is some of you want big brother government to step-in and control salaries overruling antitrust laws, and if I had to bet, only limit salaries for the people you don't like. What about lawyers (especially plaintiff lawyers paid on percent recovery?), artists, actors, NGO heads, hedge fund managers, doctors,, lobbyists? Or somehow those that get paid $1 a year as their stock holdings values bulge, like Steve Jobs (like to see how "progressive" taxes would help with him?)? No major economy has ever had a direct earnings limit ( though some countries do incorporate the policy of ultra highly progressive tax structures or in truly communist states unsuccessfully tried to cap salaries of non-elites). And in the US for some sort of maximum wage for a period beyond an Emergency, you would need a constitutional amendment - good luck on that.


Nor should one want to. For example, since now everyone seems to hates tech executives these days, let's use them. Why do we begrudge those that have taken big risks, grown companies that have added value to employees, customers, and shareholders, often in start-up stages without much salary, by capping their overall pay once they succeed? One of several reason we have a thriving tech industry in this country that doesn't exist elsewhere is because we incentivize people and capital. And once again, did I mention capping salaries is illegal.
Not sure what you each do for a living, but how do feel about your income being arbitrarily capped?


But why not the concept of the government even trying to indirectly stop high CEO salaries work through the tax laws? Legislate corporate behavior to be the economic fairness you define through the tax syste. Only problem is it doesn't work.

Clinton's victory and a Democratic Congress resulted in a tax law change in 1992 that limited companies' deductions for executives' compensation to $1 million per executive per year. First, we get to the practical part and you can thank your Democratic California Senators for this: the legislation, was stuffed with "loopholes". It covered only companies with publicly traded stock; it applied to only five (then ins 2007, four) "named executive officers" who aren't necessarily the highest-paid; and it exempted "performance-based" compensation, including stock options, and huge bonuses based on easily attained goals, allowing unlimited deductions for them. But did it impact salaries of at least those impacted? Well good old Harvard Bussines School did a study. In 1992, only 35 percent of the people in the study executives whose income was reported in companies' proxy statements had more than $1 million of income in the categories subject to deductibility limits. n 1992, only 35 percent of the people in our study executives whose income was reported in companies' proxy statements had more than $1 million of income in the categories subject to deductibility limits. (Those are salaries, bonuses and restricted stock that vests over time.) But in 2014, the study's last year the number had risen to 95 percent .Given inflation, it's no surprise that more top execs would breach the $1 million cap. But the numbers also showed something completely unintuitive. From 1992 to 2014, compensation per executive in the limited-deductibility categories rose more rapidly by about 650 percent, to $8.2 million from $1.1 million than compensation in categories such as stock options and incentive pay that aren't subject to deductibility limits. The latter rose by about 350 percent, to $4.4 million from $970,000.

Then there is more talk that progressive taxes will change everything After a ton of posts why taxes are barraging wage earners and the we now have basically a flat tax at upper levels, and the accountants who do taxes have spoken, and we say the super wealthy often don't have taxable income or can move money out of the county (your public CEO now is paid in Bermuda by a Bermuda parent company (to avoid US disclosures) and is no longer a US citizen), we still have more calls for what higher "progressive" rates. A metaphor about leading a horse to water comes to mind.

Then comes the biggest piece of poli-sci propaganda yet, that you always hear politicians blabbing. It is just the US! Let's' look at those German (e.g., European executives), who get so much less, which on a closer look really isn't and has a never been accurate. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2159119 So yes, all those different universities got to put their name the study. So first cut of the data indicates that U.S. CEOs are paid twice as much as their international counterparts. But then there is a second cut of data, after controlling for firm size (European countries tend to operate with more affiliates in separate countries), ownership, and structure, all characteristics that often differ between U.S and international companies, the gap is reduced, with U.S. executives earning only a 20% premium. And when the third cut of the analysis adjusts for the greater use of stock options and share awards in the U.S., the pay premium is reduced to a modest 4%.


The study you've pointed out on international CEO salaries skews heavily towards anglo-saxon countries (Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia) which have had neoliberal social policies and where there has been a cultural shift towards greater acceptance of neoliberal values. This, along with corporations becoming increasingly multinational, contributes to narrow the gap in that study.


Quote:

But screw the actual numbers. "Salaries for American CEOs have greatly outstripped those from other leading industrialized nations. In countries like Japan or Germany for instance, the CEO packages are much lower mostly due to cultural norms, American levels of compensation would be socially unacceptable there." I mean if we repeat this enough it will be true (it maybe for the Japanese, but I know through personal experience it isn't true for Europeans). So............ why is that enough to induce all those European executives to migrate to the US to have their chance at our rich cultural norms? They conduct business in English over there, many of their executives these days even went to school in the US. So why are they not all running over to the US to pick up their big pay day to drive salaries down here?


The European top executives that tend to move to the US are those who feel constrained in their own countries and seek the dynamic business landscape here in sectors like tech.

But some of these might also appreciate the quality of life in Europe, where for instance the 7 year-old daughter of a CEO can walk to school every morning with no second thought.

(PS: I appreciate the long, well-thought response.)
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How (are) you gonna win when you ain’t right within…
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I sold 500 shares earlier this week at $62.20
Have 500 left.


The CEO of Shell made $12 million.
Yawn.

Shell has actually been a leader in the oil patch when it comes to divesting itself of fossil fuels. Theyve been transitioning into "greener" energy and have been leading the way.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In 2022, the CEO of APPLE Tim Cook made just under $83 million in stock awards, $12 million in incentives and $3 million in salary. He also got benefits including retirement plan contributions, security, personal air travel and more than $46,000 in vacation cash-out.

You gonna boycott APPLE?
You gonna give up your iPhone?
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

I sold 500 shares earlier this week at $62.20
Have 500 left.


The CEO of Shell made $12 million.
Yawn.

Shell has actually been a leader in the oil patch when it comes to divesting itself of fossil fuels. Theyve been transitioning into "greener" energy and have been leading the way.


The CEO of Total, french oil company that is roughly the same size as Shell, had a total compensation of $4M...

To answer WIAF's post above stating that CEOs are free agents capable of moving to a higher-paying country, Pouyanne, the Total Energies CEO, couldn't quite get hired by Chevron or Shell due to cultural factors, nor could he get hired by one of the big oil firms from China, Japan or S Korea. There might be a few exceptions to the rule, but countries tend to have their own insular corporate elite circles.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

DiabloWags said:

I sold 500 shares earlier this week at $62.20
Have 500 left.


The CEO of Shell made $12 million.
Yawn.

Shell has actually been a leader in the oil patch when it comes to divesting itself of fossil fuels. Theyve been transitioning into "greener" energy and have been leading the way.


The CEO of Total, french oil company that is roughly the same size as Shell, had a total compensation of $4M...

To answer WIAF's post above stating that CEOs are free agents capable of moving to a higher-paying country, Pouyanne, the Total Energies CEO, couldn't quite get hired by Chevron or Shell due to cultural factors, nor could he get hired by one of the big oil firms from China, Japan or S Korea. There might be a few exceptions to the rule, but countries tend to have their own insular corporate elite circles.
Could not disagree more with the generalization or the example.

More and more, non-U.S. firms vie for the same capital, customers and talent as U.S. ones that operate globally. Companies looking to recruit executives in competition with equivalent U.S. firms are offering packages that are on par with U.S. standards. You can pull down the corporate org charts, look at the proxy statements, and realize multinationals in fact are not insular at all, but have a bunch of guys with different sounding names at the top. You can also tell by the numbers in studies that there has been a dramatic convergence in compensation since 2003 between non Scandinavia Europe and the US, meaning, safety of one's daughter (you mean like within their elite private boarding school?) must be getting safer, or there probably is competition for executives.

Then there are outliers. Is that a game worth playing when you have more data? How many large companies in Europe paid their CEO $1 annually, like Steve Jobs at Apple? Fine you want at look at Total, which is constantly rebranding away from its image as the French government, or being called Iraqi Oil Company in the good imperialist days, fine.

So you said the Total CEO "had a total compensation of $4M." That isn't exactly a clear image of his compensation. The Total CEO's comp actually bumps around some, so how about we start at the lowest year, 2021, when he got creamed as did his company, and he made $4 million, which is considerably lower than the $7 plus million he was averaging 2017 though 2020.

Or let's just look at last year so we can go apples and apples with the Shell guy. He made around 6 million euros (around $6.4 million) IN REPORTABLE INCOME UNDER FRECH REPORTING STANDARDS. All of which seems to reflect that maybe like the Shell guy, he does better when the company does better than the prior year. But even this is misleading if you look at the proxy statemenst. The Total CEO also received 72,000 "bonus shares" from 2019 that became vested (his unvested new stock awards were not reported). But under French accounting rules, he has zero compensation, nevertheless, the proxy statement did say the shares had a value of 2,310,336 euros or $2.4 plus million. So now the guy is creeping towards $10 million in present salary (btw, under American GAAP that stock when vested is reported as income).

But speaking on insular corporate circles, he sits on a lot of joint venture boards because of the way Total does business. And as noted in the proxy statement, none of that is included in his compensation. Which is probably is why that study you read made such a big deal about adjustments for form of companies in arriving at equivalent compensation.

Just so we know something about profits, Total had profits of $36 Billion last year. Shell had $40 billon. Looks like the CEOs made similar money, so their daughters could safely walk through their private boarding school. Also, I suspect if Shell lost its CEO tomorrow, they wouldn't have any problems looking at Total's CEO. His English is just fine, and he is plenty sophisticated.

Of course, the bad numbers are not really the biggest problem with the comparison is it? Shell is headquartered in Great Britain and its CEO isn't even an American.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

I'm not surprised that you support Biden's plan.
Socialists like Bernie Sanders would be pleased.

Biden's $6.89 TRILLION proposal raises taxes by nearly $4.7 TRILLION and would increase revenue and spending to unprecedented plateaus as a share of the economy. Spending would climb to 25.2% of GDP, compared to a 50 year average of 21%. - - - More TAX and SPEND.

Even with all the taxes, deficits over the next decade would total $17 Trillion, and debt held by the public as a share of GDP would rise to 109.8% in 2033 from 97% last year.

Add state taxes, and many high earners would pay a combined top rate of more than 55%. This is higher than in the U.K. (45%), Germany (47.5%), Spain (54%) and even Sweden (52.3%). Is Biden trying to beat Europe in a race to the tax top?

And this tax increase is good for the country's finances?

Funny!






"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

I'm not surprised that you support Biden's plan.
Socialists like Bernie Sanders would be pleased.

Biden's $6.89 TRILLION proposal raises taxes by nearly $4.7 TRILLION and would increase revenue and spending to unprecedented plateaus as a share of the economy. Spending would climb to 25.2% of GDP, compared to a 50 year average of 21%. - - - More TAX and SPEND.

Even with all the taxes, deficits over the next decade would total $17 Trillion, and debt held by the public as a share of GDP would rise to 109.8% in 2033 from 97% last year.

Add state taxes, and many high earners would pay a combined top rate of more than 55%. This is higher than in the U.K. (45%), Germany (47.5%), Spain (54%) and even Sweden (52.3%). Is Biden trying to beat Europe in a race to the tax top?

And this tax increase is good for the country's finances?

Funny!







What is your concrete proposal for reducing debt in this country? Mine is a combination of a wealth tax and single-payer health insurance. The Biden proposal is a compromise, in my view, with the safe-wealth absolutists like you and wiaf.

What is your concrete proposal?
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tell me this I have a family member that owns several apt buildings in Oakland and he once said if one doesn't have debt the taxes would eat him alive is that true for all or only those below a certain income bracket ?
How (are) you gonna win when you ain’t right within…
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

I'm not surprised that you support Biden's plan.
Socialists like Bernie Sanders would be pleased.

Biden's $6.89 TRILLION proposal raises taxes by nearly $4.7 TRILLION and would increase revenue and spending to unprecedented plateaus as a share of the economy. Spending would climb to 25.2% of GDP, compared to a 50 year average of 21%. - - - More TAX and SPEND.

Even with all the taxes, deficits over the next decade would total $17 Trillion, and debt held by the public as a share of GDP would rise to 109.8% in 2033 from 97% last year.

Add state taxes, and many high earners would pay a combined top rate of more than 55%. This is higher than in the U.K. (45%), Germany (47.5%), Spain (54%) and even Sweden (52.3%). Is Biden trying to beat Europe in a race to the tax top?

And this tax increase is good for the country's finances?

Funny!







What is your concrete proposal for reducing debt in this country? Mine is a combination of a wealth tax and single-payer health insurance. The Biden proposal is a compromise, in my view, with the safe-wealth absolutists like you and wiaf.

What is your concrete proposal?

Answer my question about how you would "remedy" CEO compensation first.
You still havent answered it.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

Tell me this I have a family member that owns several apt buildings in Oakland and he once said if one doesn't have debt the taxes would eat him alive is that true for all or only those below a certain income bracket ?

Not enough information about your family member's financial situation to know what the answer is.

Wife could likely add more but I can only guess that the buildings are financed with debt, and the debt service payments (interest) offset the rent revenue, which would otherwise be profit, and thus income taxes due.

But I think that's a lame complaint by your relative because…. Let's say she buys a $10M building on 90% borrowed at 6%. If rents equal the mortgage payments of $60k, then no profit or loss or income taxes. I'm leaving out any operation/maintenance costs purposefully. She then benefits through long term real estate appreciation? But she's probably feeling pretty grateful she has to pay no taxes, which would sink her in this "even" accounting situation.

Alternatively, if she had bought the building with $10M outright, then must pay taxes on the $60k rent income. This amount is what she says would sink her above. But I say it's a lame complaint because:

1) she only pays a percentage of the 60k income, keeps the rest. Like every other citizen (not in Waif's world).
2) how lucky to be able to own outright! No debt? Lucky girl!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

Fair enough.

The marginal tax rate increase propose by Biden is modest, and with a GOP House may be designed to just hold on to the top rate. I think the chances of a tax increase politically are nil.

My relatively uniformed view is the timing of the FED and Biden are off. There are some headwinds that seem likely to tip both the U.S. and global economy into recession by the middle of next year, and the time for tax increases and more and more higher interest rates seem contrary. There are a lot sectors that are starting to have problems such as tech, the undersupply of labor is diminishing, there really are impacts from Ukraine, and the guys like Dimon, who do seem more in touch than a wanna be like me, are getting very negative.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


My relatively uniformed view is the timing of the FED and Biden are off. There are some headwinds that seem likely to tip both the U.S. and global economy into recession by the middle of next year, and the time for tax increases and more and more higher interest rates seem contrary. There are a lot sectors that are starting to have problems such as tech, the undersupply of labor is diminishing, there really are impacts from Ukraine, and the guys like Dimon, who do seem more in touch than a wanna be like me, are getting very negative.

Jamie said (last June) to "brace yourself for an economic hurricane".
Now I have to believe that he's even more concerned.

Jamie Dimon says 'brace yourself' for an economic hurricane caused by the Fed and Ukraine war (cnbc.com)

PS. The FDIC just shut down Silicon Valley Bank. This is the first bank failure since 2020.
It would be the #2 biggest bank failure in history at $209 BILLION.

Did the FDIC act quick enough to reduce any contagion?
First Republic is getting clobbered today. Was down 53% earlier.

The question for Banks is how are they going to compete (with rates) to keep/attract depositors.
Especially with six month T-Bills at 5%

10 year yields down hard today due to the flight to safety
Down 21 basis points. That's 5.5%
Wow!

3.71%

Gotta think that the Federal Reserve is going over the books of all of the Banks right now.
What looked to have been a "lock" for a 50 basis point increase in Fed Funds this month is now only a 30% chance.


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess I should have added that Biden is not going to get much of the spending he wants either. Now all of a sudden people are taking about deficit reduction, including Biden. I get there are a (very) few legislators in the GOP that seem to care about that issue, but not enough to cobble a majority to get a budget. The timing just seems wrong. I don't Biden getting a bi-partisan cooperation on any issues, unless he does something dramatic for the GOP. Fiscal policy wise we just muddle along on where we are on spending and taxing, and rely on the FED not to put us in a recession. Didn't take my positive pills this morning.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Second biggest bank collapse in U.S. history today.
$209 Billion in assets. And no one on Bearinsider is even talking about it.

Net interest income is definitely going to be the "talk" going forward for the Banking sector.
How do you attract/keep your customers when the yield on the six-month T Bill is 5% ?

Have never seen a Bank collapse so quickly.
The speed in which this occurred is mind-boggling.









"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

I'm not surprised that you support Biden's plan.
Socialists like Bernie Sanders would be pleased.

Biden's $6.89 TRILLION proposal raises taxes by nearly $4.7 TRILLION and would increase revenue and spending to unprecedented plateaus as a share of the economy. Spending would climb to 25.2% of GDP, compared to a 50 year average of 21%. - - - More TAX and SPEND.

Even with all the taxes, deficits over the next decade would total $17 Trillion, and debt held by the public as a share of GDP would rise to 109.8% in 2033 from 97% last year.

Add state taxes, and many high earners would pay a combined top rate of more than 55%. This is higher than in the U.K. (45%), Germany (47.5%), Spain (54%) and even Sweden (52.3%). Is Biden trying to beat Europe in a race to the tax top?

And this tax increase is good for the country's finances?

Funny!







What is your concrete proposal for reducing debt in this country? Mine is a combination of a wealth tax and single-payer health insurance. The Biden proposal is a compromise, in my view, with the safe-wealth absolutists like you and wiaf.

What is your concrete proposal?

Answer my question about how you would "remedy" CEO compensation first.
You still havent answered it.

I'm not proposing a remedy specific to CEO compensation. Just like you aren't proposing a serious solution to our financial challenges
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:


What is your concrete proposal for reducing debt in this country? Mine is a combination of a wealth tax and single-payer health insurance. The Biden proposal is a compromise, in my view, with the safe-wealth absolutists like you and wiaf.

What is your concrete proposal?

Answer my question about how you would "remedy" CEO compensation first.
You still havent answered it.

I'm not proposing a remedy specific to CEO compensation. Just like you aren't proposing a serious solution to our financial challenges

All you do here is "rant" about things without ever proposing a remedy.

In regards to CEO compensation, I correctly pointed out that shareholders wind up voting on these pay packages at their Annual Shareholder's Meetings. They are the one's directly impacted by CEO pay. Interestingly enough, Apple shareholders "cut" Tim Cook's pay package for this year. These are FACTS that I present in my posts. I always try to present facts to support my claims. But you just go off on "rants" and repeatedly deflect with no genuine interest in discussing the topic at hand.

The other day, I asked you to propose a specific solution given your concerns about CEO compensation.
You failed to do so.

And once again you turn it back on me.
You're a real piece of work.
lol

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:


What is your concrete proposal for reducing debt in this country? Mine is a combination of a wealth tax and single-payer health insurance. The Biden proposal is a compromise, in my view, with the safe-wealth absolutists like you and wiaf.

What is your concrete proposal?

Answer my question about how you would "remedy" CEO compensation first.
You still havent answered it.

I'm not proposing a remedy specific to CEO compensation. Just like you aren't proposing a serious solution to our financial challenges

All you do here is "rant" about things without ever proposing a remedy.

I asked you to propose a specific solution given your concerns about CEO compensation.
You failed to do so.

On this page in this thread you can see my ideas for broad solutions to our financial challenges (I've gone into more detail in numerous other threads on this board). You can also see my support for Biden's proposal.

Yet you use this one specific issue for which I am not proposing anything to hide behind the fact that you have no real solution to our financial challenges and you just want to complain about your taxes.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:



On this page in this thread you can see my ideas for broad solutions to our financial challenges (I've gone into more detail in numerous other threads on this board). You can also see my support for Biden's proposal.

Yet you use this one specific issue for which I am not proposing anything to hide behind the fact that you have no real solution to our financial challenges and you just want to complain about your taxes.

I've frequently asked you WHO winds up paying the bulk of the taxes here in California when the wealthy start moving out. I've presented data that shows that the Top 5% in the United States pay 63% of the taxes.

Your solution for EVERYTHING appears to be to tax the Juarez's of the world more and more.
You've stated this repeatedly on Bearinsider for as long as you've been posting here.
And yet you seem totally unaware of the consequences of doing so.
As if the wealthy have no choices or say in the matter.
They and their capital arent mobile.

It's pretty obvious that the MIDDLE CLASS will wind up seeing their taxes go up since the tax burden on the bottom 50% is literally zero.

But for some reason, you can't even acknowledge who will wind up shouldering the tax burden when the wealthy move out of high tax states like California.

You offer Proposal A.
But refuse to even acknowledge any unintended consequences.

Enjoy your weekend.



"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:



On this page in this thread you can see my ideas for broad solutions to our financial challenges (I've gone into more detail in numerous other threads on this board). You can also see my support for Biden's proposal.

Yet you use this one specific issue for which I am not proposing anything to hide behind the fact that you have no real solution to our financial challenges and you just want to complain about your taxes.

I've frequently asked you WHO winds up paying the bulk of the taxes here in California when the wealthy start moving out. I've presented data that shows that the Top 5% in the United States pay 63% of the taxes.

Your solution for EVERYTHING appears to be to tax the Juarez's of the world more and more.
You've stated this repeatedly on Bearinsider for as long as you've been posting here.
And yet you seem totally unaware of the consequences of doing so.
As if the wealthy have no choices or say in the matter.
They and their capital arent mobile.

It's pretty obvious that the MIDDLE CLASS will wind up seeing their taxes go up since the tax burden on the bottom 50% is literally zero.

But for some reason, you can't even acknowledge who will wind up shouldering the tax burden when the wealthy move out of high tax states like California.

You offer Proposal A.
But refuse to even acknowledge any unintended consequences.

Enjoy your weekend.




Your solution is to raise taxes on people making ~$60k of income? Good luck with that proposal.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

Why is more taxes the default response? Why shouldn't cleaning up or eliminating spending on wasteful and/or ineffective programs that don't work be the first response?

Rather than politicians constantly asking for more, why not better use of what they've already got?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

Why is more taxes the default response? Why shouldn't cleaning up or eliminating spending on wasteful and/or ineffective programs that don't work be the first response?

Rather than politicians constantly asking for more, why not better use of what they've already got?


I'm all for it. Please be specific about the programs you want to cut and the dollar amounts.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Cal_79 said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

Why is more taxes the default response? Why shouldn't cleaning up or eliminating spending on wasteful and/or ineffective programs that don't work be the first response?

Rather than politicians constantly asking for more, why not better use of what they've already got?


I'm all for it. Please be specific about the programs you want to cut and the dollar amounts.


Let's start by halving the amount of athletic directors at U.C. Berkeley. Let's also figure out a way to make it easier to fire people in public employment. Government jobs seem like places where poor work is not punished nor good work rewarded (as compared to the private sector).
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

The IRS recently released its income tax stats for 2020, and they show the top 1% of earners paid 42.3% of the country's income taxes. Thats a two decade high in the share of taxes the 1% pay. In 2001, the top 1% contributed 33.2% of income tax revenue.

That same 1% reported earnings of 22.2% of AGI on their tax returns, which means the share of taxes paid by the top 1% as a group is roughly DOUBLE their share of income.

Meanwhile, the top 5% of earners reported 38.1% of total AGI but paid 62.7% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners reported 10.2% of AGI but paid 2.3% of all income taxes.

The liberal narrative from Biden and Bernie just doesnt match reality. The data clearly shows otherwise. The affluent do in fact pay more than their "fair" share.
The careful wording of your post tells the story very accurately. But your last paragraph is conjecture that has very little to do with the facts that you accurately presented.

Since the 1980s, corporations, investors, and their lobbyists have pushed hard for -- and won -- massive, historic reductions in their overall tax burden, mainly through reductions in the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate, reductions in the Capital Gains Tax rates, and various exemptions & loopholes, and the virtual elimination of Tariffs on imported goods. Pre-1980, these sources of Federal tax revenue were the majority, while Individual Income Taxes were only about 10% of Federal tax revenue.

With all these post-1980 corporate & capital tax reductions, the largest corporations and wealthiest oligarchs contribute practically nothing to our federal tax base. As their taxes go down, the percentage of Federal revenue from the Individual Income Tax is now 51%.

So U.S. corporations & oligarchs have successfully shifted nearly all of their tax burden onto the backs of their Customers and Employees, with the highest-paid employees bearing the majority of the burden. If you're a corporate director or VP, a top attorney, an elite professional athlete, a successful surgeon, or any other top professional who earns a salary, you're the one who's getting screwed, while your employer and their shareholders are making serious bank from your valuable time & efforts, and paying little or no tax on their earnings. Most people in this class do not consider themselves Workers, but they are.

"The Affluent" is a term that applies to many people, many of whom are considered Capital (their income comes from investing & finance), and many of whom are Workers. The important distinction is that affluent Workers (or former Workers) do pay FAR more than their "fair" share.

But large corporations, their largest shareholders, hedge funds, PE, and oligarchs do NOT pay "their fair share." In our current economy, they are extracting the vast majority of the wealth from the system, and sharing far too little, in terms of wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and donations, to sustain it.

Biden serves Capital, and could care less about Workers, regardless of what he says. He knows that increasing taxes on "the Rich" polls at about 70%. He also knows that there's zero chance that any budget that he proposes will actually pass. His proposed tax increases are just like the policies that he proposed in his 1st SOTU -- they're designed to have you think that he's on the side of Workers, but he has no intention of letting those policies become law. If the Dem owner-donors don't want it to happen, it ain't gonna happen. So he kicked off his 2024 campaign talking about taxing "the rich" more. You, me, & everyone else with half a brain knows that it ain't gonna happen.

IF Biden had a single pro-Worker bone in his body, his administration would've settled the Railroad Strike in favor of the railroad Workers, and given them the 7 days of sick leave that they were asking for. Instead, they intervened in favor of the railroads, and the Workers got ONE paid day off. PER YEAR.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is, for all intents & purposes, the ONLY Member of the U.S. Senate who consistently represents the interests of U.S. Workers. He (and to a lesser degree, Sen. Elizabeth Warren) are the only Economic Moderates (that is, favoring a more even balance of power between Labor and Capital). The other 98 Members of the U.S. Senate are Economic Extremists, legally bribed into representing the interests of Capital, and openly hostile to the interests of Labor. If you do any research into Bernie's policy positions, you'll see that he advocates for the interests of Workers, even affluent ones.

So -- many of "The Affluent," who are Workers, do pay their fair share, and then some. But the Affluent Capitalists who have successfully dumped their tax burdens onto the backs of their Workers and Customers are clearly NOT paying their fair share. And it's not only killing our economy; it's killing our small-d democracy, and our society.


TandemBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

dajo9 said:

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

Why is more taxes the default response? Why shouldn't cleaning up or eliminating spending on wasteful and/or ineffective programs that don't work be the first response?

Rather than politicians constantly asking for more, why not better use of what they've already got?
Are you KIDDING? Look around you! Our roads are falling apart. Our schools look like crap. Bridges collapsing. "Deferred maintenance" is the norm. We underfund the IRS so they can't do their jobs. Cuts, cuts, cuts is what you want?

The private sector has proven it cannot be trusted to pay living wage jobs for the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Running everything "lean and mean" has produced almost endless desperation. I cycled 30 miles in San Jose on Tuesday past endless homeless camps. This is now the NORM. Despite being dead-center in Silicon Valley, yet homeless by the thousands. How does that make ANY sense? All thanks to the attitudes like you that we cannot trust governments to spend money well. I say we fail to trust them enough.

I live in Oakland where so much is crumbling. City jobs are hard to come by. Yet City infrastructure is falling apart. Many of our public spaces are now maintained by volunteer labor. Why? Let's PAY folks needing jobs to do this work and let everyone enjoy their weekends instead. Americans work enough hours on the clock, we shouldn't be asked to donate more hours to work - especially unpaid! We need to be spending BILLIONS a year to restore our city to what it was and could be. And this means thousands and thousands of living wage, secure jobs with full benefits and retirement (even, god forbid, PENSIONS?!!!) packages. THAT'S what gives people prosperity, not cuts, cuts, cuts.

We need FAR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING to rebuild this country. From roads and bridges, to National and State Parks, universities, and all the rest. Oh and what about universal pre-school? Who doesn't support this? But let's pay early-education professionals living wages. Gee, what an idea. To actually properly compensate those responsible for bringing your children into the educational environment. (Right now, early education is one of the worst-paid jobs, yet we say we value children.)

If you want to go after "wasteful spending," then fire the ENTIRE private "health" insurance industry and install single-payer health care. That right there saves $1.3 TRILLION dollars every single year. Pre-tax dollars, that works out to about $6k per American and thus $24k per family of four.

If you REALLY wanted to improve efficiency in spending, you'd adopt single-payer. But nope, you'll continue your tirade on public sector spending like it's some huge problem, while leaving the true waste to continue unabated.
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Second biggest bank collapse in U.S. history today.
$209 Billion in assets. And no one on Bearinsider is even talking about it.

Net interest income is definitely going to be the "talk" going forward for the Banking sector.
How do you attract/keep your customers when the yield on the six-month T Bill is 5% ?

Have never seen a Bank collapse so quickly.
The speed in which this occurred is mind-boggling.

...And more to come!

This is the next stage of the Liquidity Crisis. There's so much worthless paper out there that not even the Fed can buy it all up & bail out the banks. Many corporate bonds with low yields & are probably not gonna get paid. There's lots of crypto that is, or will be, worthless.

As I was saying months ago -- The Fed's aggressive increasing of interest rates IS NOT about reducing Inflation. It's about, as Jerome Powell said, "Rebalancing Demand." The intention is to increase unemployment for Workers, make them more desperate to work for low wages, and re-assert Capital's hegemony over Labor.

They seem to forget that in their zeal to impoverish U.S. Workers, and increase their desperation, they're also impoverishing U.S. Customers.

In other words, the Fed is trying to crash the economy. It's the "killing the village in order to save it" philosophy that we saw in the Vietnam debacle.

It appears to be succeeding.

TZA was up 9% today, though.
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.


I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TandemBear said:

Are you KIDDING?

Look around you! Our roads are falling apart. Our schools look like crap. Bridges collapsing. "Deferred maintenance" is the norm. We underfund the IRS so they can't do their jobs. Cuts, cuts, cuts is what you want?

The private sector has proven it cannot be trusted to pay living wage jobs for the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Running everything "lean and mean" has produced almost endless desperation. I cycled 30 miles in San Jose on Tuesday past endless homeless camps. This is now the NORM. Despite being dead-center in Silicon Valley, yet homeless by the thousands. How does that make ANY sense? All thanks to the attitudes like you that we cannot trust governments to spend money well. I say we fail to trust them enough.

I live in Oakland where so much is crumbling. City jobs are hard to come by. Yet City infrastructure is falling apart. Many of our public spaces are now maintained by volunteer labor. Why? Let's PAY folks needing jobs to do this work and let everyone enjoy their weekends instead. Americans work enough hours on the clock, we shouldn't be asked to donate more hours to work - especially unpaid! We need to be spending BILLIONS a year to restore our city to what it was and could be. And this means thousands and thousands of living wage, secure jobs with full benefits and retirement (even, god forbid, PENSIONS?!!!) packages. THAT'S what gives people prosperity, not cuts, cuts, cuts.

We need FAR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING to rebuild this country.


You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

Voters approved Measure Q a number of years ago to fix everything, but it did not. They also approved a 1% increase in the local sales tax to 9.75%

The City Manager makes $400,000 a year and she recently re-negotiated a new contract with the police officers union that allows for starting Officers salaries to begin at $200,000.

Meanwhile, the Concord Public Works Dept is understaffed and its "streets division" has a crew of 3, responsible for 325 miles of roads in a city of 125,000.

The problem isnt a LACK OF SPENDING.

The problem is mismanagement
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

TandemBear said:

Are you KIDDING?

Look around you! Our roads are falling apart. Our schools look like crap. Bridges collapsing. "Deferred maintenance" is the norm. We underfund the IRS so they can't do their jobs. Cuts, cuts, cuts is what you want?

The private sector has proven it cannot be trusted to pay living wage jobs for the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Running everything "lean and mean" has produced almost endless desperation. I cycled 30 miles in San Jose on Tuesday past endless homeless camps. This is now the NORM. Despite being dead-center in Silicon Valley, yet homeless by the thousands. How does that make ANY sense? All thanks to the attitudes like you that we cannot trust governments to spend money well. I say we fail to trust them enough.

I live in Oakland where so much is crumbling. City jobs are hard to come by. Yet City infrastructure is falling apart. Many of our public spaces are now maintained by volunteer labor. Why? Let's PAY folks needing jobs to do this work and let everyone enjoy their weekends instead. Americans work enough hours on the clock, we shouldn't be asked to donate more hours to work - especially unpaid! We need to be spending BILLIONS a year to restore our city to what it was and could be. And this means thousands and thousands of living wage, secure jobs with full benefits and retirement (even, god forbid, PENSIONS?!!!) packages. THAT'S what gives people prosperity, not cuts, cuts, cuts.

We need FAR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING to rebuild this country.


You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

Voters approved Measure Q a number of years ago to fix everything, but it did not. They also approved a 1% increase in the local sales tax to 9.75%

The City Manager makes $400,000 a year and she recently re-negotiated a new contract with the police officers union that allows for starting Officers salaries to begin at $200,000.

Meanwhile, the Concord Public Works Dept is understaffed and its "streets division" has a crew of 3, responsible for 325 miles of roads in a city of 125,000.

The problem isnt a LACK OF SPENDING.

The problem is mismanagement



Agree and a big part of this is accountability.

These positions like City Manager are not elected positions so they are not accountable to the voters. Most of the public mistakenly believes that the Mayor is responsible for this stuff. These City Managers make big bucks as you point out and they often don't even live in or near the city they work in. They just keep moving around from gig to gig destroying new cities as they go.

As dysfunctional and corrupt as state and federal governments are it is our local government that is most corrupt. Other than perhaps a local newspaper or a few interested citizens they lack oversight. Maybe there is more oversight in LA or Chicago or Dallas but in small towns they and their cronies are raiding our coffers.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

cbbass1 said:

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.


I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.

No Saudi Arabia = no petrodollar.

If you thought things were bad in terms of budget, taxation, inflation etc, you ain't seen nothing yet.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:



In other words, the Fed is trying to crash the economy. It's the "killing the village in order to save it" philosophy that we saw in the Vietnam debacle.

It appears to be succeeding.


1.) The FED is not responsible for increasing economic supply chains. Thats the job of the Administration and Congress.

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply given the recent job growth numbers for January (+504,000) and February +311,000)... not too mention retail sales of +3.0% and consumer spending of +1.8% for January, and a 0.9% increase in wages over the prior month.


https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-spending-surges-january-inflation-accelerates-2023-02-24/
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

dajo9 said:

cbbass1 said:

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.


I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.

No Saudi Arabia = no petrodollar.

If you thought things were bad in terms of budget, taxation, inflation etc, you ain't seen nothing yet.
We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.