Post: #151

This debate is terrible. No mention of Ron Paul, just a conversation between Romney and Ging.

Post: #152

Interesting article I read recently on Romney. If he gets in office do you think he's going to allow this uncontrolled spending to go on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/pol...wanted=all

Post: #153

For y'all interested in American politics and Lulz, you should follow @lolgop on Twitter. Hilarious and they live-tweet the debates:

“@LOLGOP: If your old tax returns are more damming than Newt's second wife saying he asked for an open marriage, maybe you shouldn't run for president”

“@LOLGOP: REPORT: Mitt Romney is still up by 13% in the Cayman Islands.”

“@LOLGOP: Note to Newt: President Reagan didn't brag covert activities.”

“@LOLGOP: Wow. South Carolina voters really do respect how Newt Gingrich defines marriage as between a man and a woman who does not have cancer.”

Post: #154

What propaganda I can't believe I read that whole article lol. Well you don't become a near billionaire being a big spender. He nickel 'n dime'd his way to wealth by screwing over regular people.

Him in power equals deep cuts, but my view is that deep cuts (austerity) and overspending are one and the same. Each create bigger deficits that warrant more of the initial activity. Mr Romney will strip the gov of its renaming parts and sell it on the cheap to his buddies.

The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Post: #155

(01-24-2012 04:15 AM)kosko Wrote:  The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Post: #156

Guys I am going to play a bit of devils advocate here, because people are looking at this a bit unfairly.

- Your tax rate on dividends is always going to be lower because dividends are paid out as profit share. Your company cant pay profit share until its paid its corporate taxes, sales taxes and liabilities. You need to understand that corporate taxes are taxes on shareholders and owners. The fact that taxes on dividends are paid (many countries dont even tax it because of this) is actually an indication of the fact that taxes are high. It might not be a declared payment on Romneys behalf, but he has contributed far more as a result of this. Why should shareholders and business owners suffer double and triple taxation?

- Yes taxes on investment income are going to be lower. But again, its tax on "profit" from risk. You are going to get paid your salary and there is no financial risk to you. You are like a company all on your own who gets taxed and has its profits at the end of the year to show for it, without any risk of loss, lower earnings or no income at all. They dont have that luxury. So the expectation is that they must risk their money, and then pay the same percentage in tax that you do? Sheesh fellas, the jobs and higher contributions to the tax coffers are still not enough for you?

- Capital is tied up. His earnings from invested capital will do everything from adding liquidity to a bank to fund small business loans. So not only is he unable to spend that money to earn from it, he is then taxed on what income it generates! And not only does he pay tax on it, but his money is then used to further fund everyone else.


There are tons of reasons to dislike Romney, but this is not one of them.

Post: #157

(01-24-2012 10:35 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Guys I am going to play a bit of devils advocate here, because people are looking at this a bit unfairly.

- Your tax rate on dividends is always going to be lower because dividends are paid out as profit share. Your company cant pay profit share until its paid its corporate taxes, sales taxes and liabilities. You need to understand that corporate taxes are taxes on shareholders and owners. The fact that taxes on dividends are paid (many countries dont even tax it because of this) is actually an indication of the fact that taxes are high. It might not be a declared payment on Romneys behalf, but he has contributed far more as a result of this. Why should shareholders and business owners suffer double and triple taxation?

- Yes taxes on investment income are going to be lower. But again, its tax on "profit" from risk. You are going to get paid your salary and there is no financial risk to you. You are like a company all on your own who gets taxed and has its profits at the end of the year to show for it, without any risk of loss, lower earnings or no income at all. They dont have that luxury. So the expectation is that they must risk their money, and then pay the same percentage in tax that you do? Sheesh fellas, the jobs and higher contributions to the tax coffers are still not enough for you?

- Capital is tied up. His earnings from invested capital will do everything from adding liquidity to a bank to fund small business loans. So not only is he unable to spend that money to earn from it, he is then taxed on what income it generates! And not only does he pay tax on it, but his money is then used to further fund everyone else.


There are tons of reasons to dislike Romney, but this is not one of them.

A lot of Romney's income comes from "carried interest" that's taxed at the same rate as capital gains even though it's just a commission he gets for managing other people's money. There was no profit tax paid on it.

Also, I don't have a problem with having a high tax rate on someone like Romney's income even if he runs the "risk" that he might only make $10 million instead of $20 million.

Post: #158

(01-24-2012 05:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 04:15 AM)kosko Wrote:  The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

Post: #159

(01-24-2012 10:57 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  A lot of Romney's income comes from "carried interest" that's taxed at the same rate as capital gains even though it's just a commission he gets for managing other people's money. There was no profit tax paid on it.

Also, I don't have a problem with having a high tax rate on someone like Romney's income even if he runs the "risk" that he might only make $10 million instead of $20 million.

Yep, you dont have a problem with it because its not your money. Its like a raid on the rich mans bank account so you can hand it all to the poor who feel entitled to his wealth.

And in the process, you gradually remove all incentives there are for people to invest. They take their money elsewhere, along with the jobs they would have created and the tax revenues that would have led to.

His interest payments means that his capital is tied up. But that money he "lends" to the bank is then cut up into tiny little pieces and borrowed to everyone else. He gets his cut by funding your mortgages, credit cards and small businesses.

And you tax him for the privilege.

And to make matters worse, the more you taxed him, the less money he would have had to reinvest so that it could be cut up into tiny little pieces and borrowed to everyone, essentially crippling yourself and everyone else in the long term.

Post: #160

(01-24-2012 11:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 04:15 AM)kosko Wrote:  The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Post: #161

(01-24-2012 11:27 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 04:15 AM)kosko Wrote:  The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Which laws do you see Romney proposing that regulates freedom? Obama has interjected himself in virtually every part of the Economy, and you can gauge personal freedom by economic freedom. I like Ron Paul myself, but Romney is proposing to deregulate the economy, not burden it with more laws that have unintended harmful consequences. Your thoughts?

Post: #162

(01-24-2012 11:42 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:27 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 04:15 AM)kosko Wrote:  The NYT used the same style of writing to humanize Obama. Obama is nothing more than a ivy league elitist whom they tried to portray as a open armed community builder. Lol.

Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Which laws do you see Romney proposing that regulates freedom? Obama has interjected himself in virtually every part of the Economy, and you can gauge personal freedom by economic freedom. I like Ron Paul myself, but Romney is proposing to deregulate the economy, not burden it with more laws that have unintended harmful consequences. Your thoughts?

Being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and trying to ban pornography in hotels off the top of my head are examples of his moral crusading infringing on the personal freedoms of Americans.

Post: #163

(01-24-2012 11:53 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:42 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:27 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Obama an elitist? Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan, CEO of American Motors and of aristocratic Mormon stock (look up the Pratt-Romney family). Romney went to Stanford and Harvard as well and has the same Harvard JD degree that Obama has. Yeah Obama is part of the elite no doubt, but Romney far more so.

Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Which laws do you see Romney proposing that regulates freedom? Obama has interjected himself in virtually every part of the Economy, and you can gauge personal freedom by economic freedom. I like Ron Paul myself, but Romney is proposing to deregulate the economy, not burden it with more laws that have unintended harmful consequences. Your thoughts?

Being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and trying to ban pornography in hotels off the top of my head are examples of his moral crusading infringing on the personal freedoms of Americans.

Agreed on Pro Life stance but that will not result in a pro life law. Indifferent on gay marriage, again I doubt that will result in any federal laws, As a former soldier, Dont ask don't tell is a good policy imo, who you sleep with shouldn't be anyone's business. I'm unaware of this ban on pornography I don't see how that could ever result in regulation. In summation, I'd say that that's a pretty short list compared to Obama's actions.
I agree with you that he is an Elitist by my definition but your statement was "Romney is far more so" and that is what I'm saying is untrue. You gave a J.D. degree and where he received it from as evidence which I think should be dismissed.

Post: #164

(01-24-2012 11:22 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:57 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  A lot of Romney's income comes from "carried interest" that's taxed at the same rate as capital gains even though it's just a commission he gets for managing other people's money. There was no profit tax paid on it.

Also, I don't have a problem with having a high tax rate on someone like Romney's income even if he runs the "risk" that he might only make $10 million instead of $20 million.

Yep, you dont have a problem with it because its not your money. Its like a raid on the rich mans bank account so you can hand it all to the poor who feel entitled to his wealth.

And in the process, you gradually remove all incentives there are for people to invest. They take their money elsewhere, along with the jobs they would have created and the tax revenues that would have led to.

His interest payments means that his capital is tied up. But that money he "lends" to the bank is then cut up into tiny little pieces and borrowed to everyone else. He gets his cut by funding your mortgages, credit cards and small businesses.

And you tax him for the privilege.

And to make matters worse, the more you taxed him, the less money he would have had to reinvest so that it could be cut up into tiny little pieces and borrowed to everyone, essentially crippling yourself and everyone else in the long term.

Yes, I do think taxation of high incomes in order to improve the condition of the poor (or to maintain the public goods that allow for the kind of society that allowed someone like Romney to make his money in the first place) is consistent with distributive justice. If I had that kind of money I would still support higher taxes on it. Perhaps more importantly, if I didn't know whether I were going to be rich or poor I'd like society to be structured in such a way that I wouldn't get shafted if I turned out to be one of the least advantaged people.

I'm sure there's a point at which it becomes counterproductive to raise taxes on high incomes in order to improve conditions for everyone else (partially for the reasons you state), but I'm equally sure that that point is nowhere in the neighborhood of 15% marginal tax rates.

Also, one reason why some people don't like Romney is because he made a good part of his fortune performing corporate takeovers whose value-added to the economy was questionable at best. So I'm not sure your criticism applies in his case.

Post: #165

(01-25-2012 12:11 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:53 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:42 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:27 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Pdog, I forgot to respond to this last night so I'm not sure how the convo has progressed but, my understanding of the definition of an Elitist is- Someone who considers themselves to be smarter than everyone else and because of that, is entitled to tell EVERYONE else how they should live their lives. In effect, they are so smart your personal freedoms don't mean very much to them because they know better than you how you should live your life.

In that respect, Obama is the Elitist. And Romney barely registers. What degree you possess and where doesn't make you an Elitist. Your thought's and sense of entitlement do IMO

I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Which laws do you see Romney proposing that regulates freedom? Obama has interjected himself in virtually every part of the Economy, and you can gauge personal freedom by economic freedom. I like Ron Paul myself, but Romney is proposing to deregulate the economy, not burden it with more laws that have unintended harmful consequences. Your thoughts?

Being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and trying to ban pornography in hotels off the top of my head are examples of his moral crusading infringing on the personal freedoms of Americans.

Agreed on Pro Life stance but that will not result in a pro life law. Indifferent on gay marriage, again I doubt that will result in any federal laws, As a former soldier, Dont ask don't tell is a good policy imo, who you sleep with shouldn't be anyone's business. I'm unaware of this ban on pornography I don't see how that could ever result in regulation. In summation, I'd say that that's a pretty short list compared to Obama's actions.
I agree with you that he is an Elitist by my definition but your statement was "Romney is far more so" and that is what I'm saying is untrue. You gave a J.D. degree and where he received it from as evidence which I think should be dismissed.

I pointed out Obama's degree because kosko called him an Ivy league elitist. Whereas Romney has exactly the same degree from exactly the same university, which made kosko's argument completely one sided.

Romney was born to a man who was a multimillionaire American aristocrat who also once ran for President. If Romney wasn't a Mormon he'd be a textbook case of the America's WASP elite establishment. His family (the Pratt-Romney's) have been influential in American politics and business for almost four hundred years now. All the way back to 17th century Connecticut. He was born into the elite, and he will die part of the elite. You cannot compare Romney's social background to Obama's. Not by a longshot.

Post: #166

(01-25-2012 12:23 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:11 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:53 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:42 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 11:27 PM)P Dog Wrote:  I don't see how your definition includes Obama but excludes Romney.

Which laws do you see Romney proposing that regulates freedom? Obama has interjected himself in virtually every part of the Economy, and you can gauge personal freedom by economic freedom. I like Ron Paul myself, but Romney is proposing to deregulate the economy, not burden it with more laws that have unintended harmful consequences. Your thoughts?

I'm not comparing his social background, Romney isn't friends with terrorists Bill Ayers, or openly militant racists like Rev. J Wright. He does however keep company with warren buffett and was nice enough to kill the keystone oil pipeline deal that would have created 1000s of jobs and as a result, one of Buffett's companies (Burlington Northern Sante Fe LLC) benefited obnoxiosly. I'm not comparing social backgrounds...

I'm comparing policy and personal philosophy.

Anyway, we don't have to agree on everything.

Being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and trying to ban pornography in hotels off the top of my head are examples of his moral crusading infringing on the personal freedoms of Americans.

Agreed on Pro Life stance but that will not result in a pro life law. Indifferent on gay marriage, again I doubt that will result in any federal laws, As a former soldier, Dont ask don't tell is a good policy imo, who you sleep with shouldn't be anyone's business. I'm unaware of this ban on pornography I don't see how that could ever result in regulation. In summation, I'd say that that's a pretty short list compared to Obama's actions.
I agree with you that he is an Elitist by my definition but your statement was "Romney is far more so" and that is what I'm saying is untrue. You gave a J.D. degree and where he received it from as evidence which I think should be dismissed.

I pointed out Obama's degree because kosko called him an Ivy league elitist. Whereas Romney has exactly the same degree from exactly the same university, which made kosko's argument completely one sided.

Romney was born to a man who was a multimillionaire American aristocrat who also once ran for President. If Romney wasn't a Mormon he'd be a textbook case of the America's WASP elite establishment. His family (the Pratt-Romney's) have been influential in American politics and business for almost four hundred years now. All the way back to 17th century Connecticut. He was born into the elite, and he will die part of the elite. You cannot compare Romney's social background to Obama's. Not by a longshot.

I'm not comparing his social background, Romney isn't friends with terrorists Bill Ayers, or openly militant racists like Rev. J Wright. He does however keep company with warren buffett and was nice enough to kill the keystone oil pipeline deal that would have created 1000s of jobs and as a result, one of Buffett's companies (Burlington Northern Sante Fe LLC) benefited obnoxiosly. I'm not comparing social backgrounds...

I'm comparing policy and personal philosophy.

Anyway, we don't have to agree on everything.

Post: #167

(01-25-2012 12:17 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  Yes, I do think taxation of high incomes in order to improve the condition of the poor (or to maintain the public goods that allow for the kind of society that allowed someone like Romney to make his money in the first place) is consistent with distributive justice. If I had that kind of money I would still support higher taxes on it. Perhaps more importantly, if I didn't know whether I were going to be rich or poor I'd like society to be structured in such a way that I wouldn't get shafted if I turned out to be one of the least advantaged people.

I'm sure there's a point at which it becomes counterproductive to raise taxes on high incomes in order to improve conditions for everyone else (partially for the reasons you state), but I'm equally sure that that point is nowhere in the neighborhood of 15% marginal tax rates.

Also, one reason why some people don't like Romney is because he made a good part of his fortune performing corporate takeovers whose value-added to the economy was questionable at best. So I'm not sure your criticism applies in his case.

Distributive justice? I think thats where I will walk away from this.

Pointless debating anything related to finance when you have entitlement beliefs.

Post: #168

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2012/01/24...god/?tsp=1

Post: #169

(01-25-2012 01:04 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:17 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  Yes, I do think taxation of high incomes in order to improve the condition of the poor (or to maintain the public goods that allow for the kind of society that allowed someone like Romney to make his money in the first place) is consistent with distributive justice. If I had that kind of money I would still support higher taxes on it. Perhaps more importantly, if I didn't know whether I were going to be rich or poor I'd like society to be structured in such a way that I wouldn't get shafted if I turned out to be one of the least advantaged people.

I'm sure there's a point at which it becomes counterproductive to raise taxes on high incomes in order to improve conditions for everyone else (partially for the reasons you state), but I'm equally sure that that point is nowhere in the neighborhood of 15% marginal tax rates.

Also, one reason why some people don't like Romney is because he made a good part of his fortune performing corporate takeovers whose value-added to the economy was questionable at best. So I'm not sure your criticism applies in his case.

Distributive justice? I think thats where I will walk away from this.

Pointless debating anything related to finance when you have entitlement beliefs.

I'm not trying to get into a debate on political philosophy, but it's worth pointing out that even people like Robert Nozick, who literally wrote the book on modern libertarianism, acknowledge that it's perfectly legitimate to talk about the justice (or lack thereof) of a set of economic conditions. There are arguments for your position, but the best ones are significantly more sophisticated than "fuck you, I got mine."

Regardless of whether you care about inequality or social welfare, we can still talk about some empirical facts:

• Much of Romney's income is not profits from his investments but rather "carried interest" that gets taxed at the same, low rate as capital gains even though it's no different from ordinary income in any important way and was not subject to a profit tax.
• US capital gains and profit taxes have historically been much higher than they currently are, with no evidence of any of the negative effects you mention occurring to any significant degree. 15% marginal tax rates do not seem to be self-defeating.
• Romney made a lot of his money doing leveraged buyouts which arguably do not add value to the economy but rather extract rents by breaking implicit contracts with workers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. So even if what you say is true in general, it might not even apply to someone like Romney.

Post: #170

Romney isn't exactly pro-life! Actually he is the least pro-life GOP candidate.

Post: #171

(01-25-2012 09:07 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  Romney isn't exactly pro-life! Actually he is the least pro-life GOP candidate.

That's because he changes his position all the time because he's a careerist with no spine. Right now, he is pro-life.

Post: #172

(01-25-2012 11:25 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  

• Much of Romney's income is not profits from his investments but rather "carried interest" that gets taxed at the same, low rate as capital gains even though it's no different from ordinary income in any important way and was not subject to a profit tax.

Its invested capital that is tied up. It has an impact on his personal liquidity. How do you think they fund all those credit cards, mortgages and small business loans dude? Through deposits, interbank lending and guarantees.

That investment has a positive, productive effect on the economy which you benefit from. And the returns he sees for that are taxed. Why should it be taxed at full income tax rates essentially seeing him taxed 3, 4 and 5 times over?

You are not entitled to his wealth. No one is. People can hate on the wealthy all they want, they keep you fed. Your governments on the other hand redistributes their wealth to win your jealous little votes, and in the process it is killing the geese laying the golden eggs.

Quote:

US capital gains and profit taxes have historically been much higher than they currently are, with no evidence of any of the negative effects you mention occurring to any significant degree. 15% marginal tax rates do not seem to be self-defeating.

Yep, and the US did not have to compete with a rapidly industrialising world at that stage. You dont live in a microcosm anymore, you are not the only place to be doing business and you are no longer the worlds factory. You dont have the world by the balls anymore.

Move on or die.

Why the hell am I going to run any head office in the US when I have 10% corporate tax rates in Ireland? Why am I going to run a steel mill in Illinois when there are no unions to worry about in Malaysia? Why would I invest my savings in US banks when I could invest it in Singapore and see lower taxes?

Why would I risk my money, experience, network and time to fund a startup in the USA where I pay high corporate taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, high income taxes on salaries drawn only to then have to pay taxes on dividends. After those taxes, ill have to pay more tax when I stick it in the bank and earn interest from it. Thats if the business is even successful and manages to deal with all the industry regulation and red tape, along with unionised labor force.

No one owes you a thing. Either create an environment condusive to business and investment or watch your jobs go and your middle class continue to die.

Quote:

Romney made a lot of his money doing leveraged buyouts which arguably do not add value to the economy but rather extract rents by breaking implicit contracts with workers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. So even if what you say is true in general, it might not even apply to someone like Romney.

The alternative was to see those companies shut down completely.

Look I am no fan of Romney, I think he is a tool and I believe he is corrupt. Im not trying to defend him. What I have a problem with is this anti capitalist view that so many Americans are taking to.

You want to see socialism in all its glory? Work and live in Europe. And if that does not wake you up, spend some time in Russia so you can see what the real impact of this left leaning nonsense leads to.

Post: #173

well said Harry, well said. I find it especially ironic when children or grandchildren of immigrants who fled countries to come here to take advantage of capitalism and the opportunity it provided want things to be more like the economic shitholes their families fled.

Post: #174

(01-25-2012 11:45 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Its invested capital that is tied up. It has an impact on his personal liquidity. How do you think they fund all those credit cards, mortgages and small business loans dude? Through deposits, interbank lending and guarantees.

That investment has a positive, productive effect on the economy which you benefit from. And the returns he sees for that are taxed. Why should it be taxed at full income tax rates essentially seeing him taxed 3, 4 and 5 times over?

It's a commission he gets from managing other people's money. There's no principled reason to treat it any differently from ordinary income, and the only reason why it is treated as capital gains is because lobbyists for hedge fund managers had it written into the tax code for their benefit.

If he chooses to reinvest that income then it's the same thing as if you or I earned a wage and then invested it instead of spending it. It shouldn't get special treatment.

Quote:You are not entitled to his wealth. No one is. People can hate on the wealthy all they want, they keep you fed. Your governments on the other hand redistributes their wealth to win your jealous little votes, and in the process it is killing the geese laying the golden eggs.

Do you have any evidence that economic losses from the current level of US investment taxes due to these disincentive effects is greater than the amount of revenue raised? I'm sure that could be true for some marginal tax rates in some circumstances but it's equally absurd to think that it has to be true always and everywhere.

Let me ask you a question: say you were primarily concerned with maximizing the welfare of the poor rather than protecting wealthy people's property. How would you set tax rates in order to accomplish that objective? Would you argue that we should not tax the rich at all because doing so would impair their ability to reinvest their wealth and ultimately be too harmful to the poor to justify the revenue raised? What do you think would be the effect on poor people's standard of living of failing to have enough revenue to fund things like public infrastructure and a robust welfare state? (sorry, that was several questions.)

Quote:Yep, and the US did not have to compete with a rapidly industrialising world at that stage. You dont live in a microcosm anymore, you are not the only place to be doing business and you are no longer the worlds factory. You dont have the world by the balls anymore.

Move on or die.

Why the hell am I going to run any head office in the US when I have 10% corporate tax rates in Ireland? Why am I going to run a steel mill in Illinois when there are no unions to worry about in Malaysia? Why would I invest my savings in US banks when I could invest it in Singapore and see lower taxes?

Why would I risk my money, experience, network and time to fund a startup in the USA where I pay high corporate taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, high income taxes on salaries drawn only to then have to pay taxes on dividends. After those taxes, ill have to pay more tax when I stick it in the bank and earn interest from it. Thats if the business is even successful and manages to deal with all the industry regulation and red tape, along with unionised labor force.

No one owes you a thing. Either create an environment condusive to business and investment or watch your jobs go and your middle class continue to die.

Again, what evidence do you have that current tax rates are causing a loss of jobs? US taxes are quite low in comparison to the majority of developed countries, and the effective US corporate tax rate is significantly lower than the statutory rate due to the presence of numerous loopholes. I see a lot of rhetoric here but not much data to back it up.

Quote:The alternative was to see those companies shut down completely.

If that paper I linked to is correct, then what happened may have been no better than the alternative, and perhaps worse from the standpoint of value-added when you subtract the rents that were extracted by the group doing the takeovers.

Quote:Look I am no fan of Romney, I think he is a tool and I believe he is corrupt. Im not trying to defend him. What I have a problem with is this anti capitalist view that so many Americans are taking to.

You want to see socialism in all its glory? Work and live in Europe. And if that does not wake you up, spend some time in Russia so you can see what the real impact of this left leaning nonsense leads to.

See, I think people get misled by adopting this kind of black-and-white attitude. Just because you favor (from what I gather) what amounts to a radical libertarian view of how society should be structured doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you wants the government to seize control of the means of production, put everyone on collective farms, and start liquidating the Kulaks. I think you and I have different opinions on what the main goals of economic policy should be (although I suspect they're broadly similar in some respects), and it's not surprising that we subsequently favor different policies to the extent that they would have the effect of promoting those goals. I think the evidence is that the US is able to tolerate reasonably high marginal tax rates without too large of an effect on economic growth, and up to a point the social welfare benefits that can be derived from using that revenue outweigh the costs that are incurred. I wouldn't expect that argument to persuade you because you seem to see property rights as a more fundamental concern than social welfare or distributive justice. But don't go saying that people who disagree with you are being incoherent when in all probability they just don't share your priorities.

Post: #175

Quote:I pointed out Obama's degree because kosko called him an Ivy league elitist. Whereas Romney has exactly the same degree from exactly the same university, which made kosko's argument completely one sided.

Romney was born to a man who was a multimillionaire American aristocrat who also once ran for President. If Romney wasn't a Mormon he'd be a textbook case of the America's WASP elite establishment. His family (the Pratt-Romney's) have been influential in American politics and business for almost four hundred years now. All the way back to 17th century Connecticut. He was born into the elite, and he will die part of the elite. You cannot compare Romney's social background to Obama's. Not by a longshot.

Why on God's green earth are you guys arguing over who's an elitist? It is irrelevant. What are their track records? What have they done?

As a Senator, Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and voted to the left of the sole socialist there, Bernie Sanders. He then increased the debt more in two years than Bush did in eight years. He then forced through a highly unpopular health care bill with no transparency and closed-door deals.

Romney is a shameless politician who changes his positions to suit his ambitions. He governed Massachusetts as a liberal, not as a Republican (much less a conservative). He is the pick of the Republican establishment, which is a big red warning flag.

I do not like either of them. This might be the first time in my life that I do not vote for a Presidential candidate. Ron Paul knows more about fiscal and monetary policy than all the other candidates combined, but his foreign policy really concerns me. Saying that Iran getting nuclear weapons is just dandy shows that he does not understand the Islam problem. If you believe that you get 72 virgins when you die as a martyr, why not push the button? I would still gladly vote for Paul if he won the nomination, but there is no chance of that happening.

I would also vote for Gingrich, because there is an outside chance that he is a true visionary, which is exactly what we need to avoid an economic catastrophe resulting from unsustainable debt and a declining dollar. He is a man of intellect and ideas, but there is no guarantee.