Post: #26

(05-23-2015 03:10 PM)marty Wrote:  I love the fact that this thread focused on what an astonishing amount of taxes he has to pay, whereas everywhere else people would go "OMG!!44 How much money he makes!!! Unfaaaair! Why don't I make this much?!!!". Well, guess what - because he put in the sheer hard work, got lucky and only has a few more years to make this much. Then he'll probably go broke as these dumb US athletes who make the big bucks usually do. They're used to making millions annually, then the money tap closes. Bang! No income, pretty much no savings, you get the idea.

Also people don't realise how many players get this far - and how many drop out along the way. You could argue that it's unfair that he gets to make this much. I believe it's much more unfair that he has to pay this much in taxes. I mean I find the whole idea of the riches paying more taxes ridiculous. Why? Because they were smarter?

Cutch won't be one of those broke dudes. He's got a good head on is shoulders (though the potential for divorce rate is always there). WB his wife, a real bad bitch!

He'll be in line for a monster contract in 2019 (he's signed through 2018). 4 years 100 mill minimum on top of the 50-65 his earning on this one.

Post: #27

(05-23-2015 03:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  The reason the cost of living is so high is because in every city in America, old people conspire to keep housing in short supply, and get the city to bend to their will. People are woefully ignorant of the fact that the price for housing, like sex and apples, are set by supply and demand - specifically artificial government limits on housing growth, put in place by old people who hate the young and have gone full retard on Fuck You I Got Mine mode.

Not only that, but our federal government has a vested interest in keeping housing prices high and ever escalating because people are more likely to take out equity and consume, thus fueling the economy.

If our government gave a damn about helping younger people get into the housing market, they'd start by banning foreigners from owning investment homes. I'd even go a step further and ban them from buying any real estate in high demand areas such as NYC, LA and SF. I don't mean ban people from buying who actually live in the US with green cards and need a primary residence. I mean for example wealthy Chinese buying houses and apartments in Socal to rent them out, or as unoccupied second homes.

Post: #28

(05-23-2015 03:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Tariffs: What if other states just stop doing business with you to avoid the tariffs and find other trading partners?

I'm convinced a tariff is the beginning of a solution. Judging, if for no other reason, by who opposes it. First they imported low-wage, low-skill labor from abroad (agricultural, domestic work). Then, they exported skilled (manufacturing) and white-collar labor (programming). The result is a bunch of thirsty workers fighting over the scraps. Yet we still elect a Bush or Clinton (or Obama) into office, thinking that this Goldman Sachs-funded automaton will be different.

Tariffs would not hurt that much, but there's no way tariffs alone could support the current leviathan state we have in it's present state. Only a net-worth tax could make do, and only a net-worth tax is fair because it taxes evenly and lifts the burden of taxation off the middle class and poor.

Post: #29

(05-23-2015 05:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Tariffs: What if other states just stop doing business with you to avoid the tariffs and find other trading partners?

I'm convinced a tariff is the beginning of a solution. Judging, if for no other reason, by who opposes it. First they imported low-wage, low-skill labor from abroad (agricultural, domestic work). Then, they exported skilled (manufacturing) and white-collar labor (programming). The result is a bunch of thirsty workers fighting over the scraps. Yet we still elect a Bush or Clinton (or Obama) into office, thinking that this Goldman Sachs-funded automaton will be different.

Tariffs would not hurt that much, but there's no way tariffs alone could support the current leviathan state we have in it's present state. Only a net-worth tax could make do, and only a net-worth tax is fair because it taxes evenly and lifts the burden of taxation off the middle class and poor.

I fail to see how any tax system is "fair". How is net worth tax any fairer than a fixed base tax that's the same for everyone. Ok, you will say the point of that is to help the poor. Let's assume this is true. Why should someone pay x% after his total net worth? Should someone pay for the same things (infrastructure, education, etc.) 10x more taxes if he makes 10x? Why? Because it's fair? Pumping back money from the rich to the poor is only a band-aid for the poor. Everyone living equally with equal amount of money is a pure fantasy, nothing more. We tried, it was even worse than democracy. It's called communism.

Post: #30

(05-23-2015 06:15 PM)marty Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 05:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Tariffs: What if other states just stop doing business with you to avoid the tariffs and find other trading partners?

I'm convinced a tariff is the beginning of a solution. Judging, if for no other reason, by who opposes it. First they imported low-wage, low-skill labor from abroad (agricultural, domestic work). Then, they exported skilled (manufacturing) and white-collar labor (programming). The result is a bunch of thirsty workers fighting over the scraps. Yet we still elect a Bush or Clinton (or Obama) into office, thinking that this Goldman Sachs-funded automaton will be different.

Tariffs would not hurt that much, but there's no way tariffs alone could support the current leviathan state we have in it's present state. Only a net-worth tax could make do, and only a net-worth tax is fair because it taxes evenly and lifts the burden of taxation off the middle class and poor.

I fail to see how any tax system is "fair". How is net worth tax any fairer than a fixed base tax that's the same for everyone. Ok, you will say the point of that is to help the poor. Let's assume this is true. Why should someone pay x% after his total net worth? Should someone pay for the same things (infrastructure, education, etc.) 10x more taxes if he makes 10x? Why? Because it's fair? Pumping back money from the rich to the poor is only a band-aid for the poor. Everyone living equally with equal amount of money is a pure fantasy, nothing more. We tried, it was even worse than democracy. It's called communism.

You're battling straw-men; no idea who you're even talking to. I'm talking about the best way to manage taxes in a world that needs government, then you start babbling about some imaginary utopia where no one needs to be taxed because it's not fair for anyone to be taxed and contribute to their community or something.

Try reading my posts and, before posting, read the posts back to yourself to see if they make any sense.

Post: #31

(05-23-2015 03:43 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:25 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:Meanwhile, unproductive leeches like bankers are making money hand over fist and pay a fraction of what the dude breaking his back for his new business, that he built off the ground and actually contributes to society, does.

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "bankers", but banking is a vital part of society.

I find it equally laughable that you do not see the necessity of a stable banking system to a free and prosperous society. Although I am worried about current economic policies such as ZIRP/NIRP, banning cash, QE, etc, they do not change the fact that banks add value. Just off the top of my head:

1) Safe place to store your wealth
2) Facilitate easy access to your wealth
3) Provide financing for all sorts of endeavors
4) Manage financial risks (which is the most important)

Apparently your historical knowledge is lacking. Most civilizations have done well without any form of mass banking, including the West. Christianity enforced anti-Usury laws across the West for 1000 years, and during that time Europe became a powerhouse. There's nothing necessary about banking.

Is it convenient to have banks? Sure. Is it good? Probably not. Is it vital? Definately not, which is what you originally said and is a laughable, easily contradicted assertion.

Post: #32

The housing thing is ridiculous. And this illustrates Basil's point about old-fart boomers having control over city and town councils and pretty much shutting out anyone who they do not approve of. In my small New England town, good luck finding an apartment to rent that is under $1000. And virtually all the apartment complexes are located in the bad part of town, far away from the rich fucks and their Trader Joes. And there is nothing special about this town either: no decent clubs, no interesting things to do. Just miles and miles of cookie cutter houses and shopping centres. We actually had a dance club that opened up a few years ago. It was shut down a year later and they gave the reason as their lease expired, but everyone knows it is because the fat fuck boomers didn't like having something young people enjoyed and forced the owners to pack their shit and leave.

When I talk to people and ask why housing price here are so out of control they all answer in unison: "We have good schools". Ok, whatever.

Post: #33

(05-23-2015 06:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Apparently your historical knowledge is lacking. Most civilizations have done well without any form of mass banking, including the West. Christianity enforced anti-Usury laws across the West for 1000 years, and during that time Europe became a powerhouse. There's nothing necessary about banking.

Is it convenient to have banks? Sure. Is it good? Probably not. Is it vital? Definately not, which is what you originally said and is a laughable, easily contradicted assertion.

Banking services have been provided in some form or another since the dawn of civilization. Temples were ransacked first not for religious reasons, but because that was where the wealth was stored (under the belief that priests were trustworthy).

If you think that banking did not exist for 1000 years under the Christian western civilization, it is you who are lacking in historical knowledge. Christianity banned usury, so it was the Jews that performed lending services. And depending on which 1000 years you're speaking of, take note of the Medici Bank.

For a quick primer, I find Wikipedia's article on the history of banking to be useful.

Quote:Is it vital? Definately not, which is what you originally said and is a laughable, easily contradicted assertion.

You have contradicted nothing.

Post: #34

(05-23-2015 06:42 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  The housing thing is ridiculous. And this illustrates Basil's point about old-fart boomers having control over city and town councils and pretty much shutting out anyone who they do not approve of. In my small New England town, good luck finding an apartment to rent that is under $1000. And virtually all the apartment complexes are located in the bad part of town, far away from the rich fucks and their Trader Joes. And there is nothing special about this town either: no decent clubs, no interesting things to do. Just miles and miles of cookie cutter houses and shopping centres. We actually had a dance club that opened up a few years ago. It was shut down a year later and they gave the reason as their lease expired, but everyone knows it is because the fat fuck boomers didn't like having something young people enjoyed and forced the owners to pack their shit and leave.

When I talk to people and ask why housing price here are so out of control they all answer in unison: "We have good schools". Ok, whatever.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

You are essentially 100% correct, but do you think there is malice in the Baby Boomers' thought process? I don't think so. They are doing what comes natural, they want to secure their bounty, their lifestyle and their wealth just like any person in an advantageous position would do.

Problem is with this crew is they get older, retire, contribute nothing to tax yet they still have the power of vote and they're all going to live until they're 90. So what's going to happen is you'll have non contributors deciding the outcome of the western world in 10-15 years.

Post: #35

(05-23-2015 05:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  The reason the cost of living is so high is because in every city in America, old people conspire to keep housing in short supply, and get the city to bend to their will. People are woefully ignorant of the fact that the price for housing, like sex and apples, are set by supply and demand - specifically artificial government limits on housing growth, put in place by old people who hate the young and have gone full retard on Fuck You I Got Mine mode.

Not only that, but our federal government has a vested interest in keeping housing prices high and ever escalating because people are more likely to take out equity and consume, thus fueling the economy.

If our government gave a damn about helping younger people get into the housing market, they'd start by banning foreigners from owning investment homes. I'd even go a step further and ban them from buying any real estate in high demand areas such as NYC, LA and SF. I don't mean ban people from buying who actually live in the US with green cards and need a primary residence. I mean for example wealthy Chinese buying houses and apartments in Socal to rent them out, or as unoccupied second homes.

Wow, Shocked that someone here knows about Arcadia lol

Post: #36

(05-23-2015 05:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:55 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  The reason the cost of living is so high is because in every city in America, old people conspire to keep housing in short supply, and get the city to bend to their will. People are woefully ignorant of the fact that the price for housing, like sex and apples, are set by supply and demand - specifically artificial government limits on housing growth, put in place by old people who hate the young and have gone full retard on Fuck You I Got Mine mode.

Not only that, but our federal government has a vested interest in keeping housing prices high and ever escalating because people are more likely to take out equity and consume, thus fueling the economy.

If our government gave a damn about helping younger people get into the housing market, they'd start by banning foreigners from owning investment homes. I'd even go a step further and ban them from buying any real estate in high demand areas such as NYC, LA and SF. I don't mean ban people from buying who actually live in the US with green cards and need a primary residence. I mean for example wealthy Chinese buying houses and apartments in Socal to rent them out, or as unoccupied second homes.

This is a huge problem in Vancouver too. The media tries to talk about it every once and a while but people are too scared of being politically un-correct to say anything but "all races should be able to buy houses equally" when that has nothing to do with the issue.

Post: #37

It's easy to describe scenarios where banks (even an investment bank) provide real value to the economy and also to society.

Time-value of money:

Person needs a car to drive to work, but needs to work to pay for the car. Bank lends the person the money to pay for the car, person uses the car to make money and pay back the bank. Simple lending. Banks aren't needed for lending, you say? OK fine, but now you are nitpicking semantics.

Liquidity:

Production (eg grain) is variable year to year. Sometimes the farmer produces more than demand. Sometimes he produces less. When a farmer produces more than the normal demand. He can either hold the grain himself (which costs space and perhaps money) and wait for a period of scarcity (which may not happen before the grain is lost) to sell it for a profit; or he can offload that risk to an investor who will assume the risks and pay for storage. When (or if) grain becomes scarce, the investor will then cash out for a profit. Offloading risk is attractive to a farmer, whose business benefits from having a stable, predictable income. Meanwhile, the investor's whole business involves managing and mitigating risk, and holding onto grain indefinitely until the market conditions are ripe is quite natural. Society benefits because the price of grain remains relatively stable.

Again, is it possible to accomplish this without a bank? OK maybe, but if you're really arguing the subtle and complicated point of which financial services are important to the economy and how society should handle them, perhaps it would make sense for the case to include more than a gif of kramer laughing and a condescending accusation that your opponent doesn't know his history. (Ironically, in the process, making a generalization just as carelessly worded as the claim that banks are "vital")

Post: #38

I'm shaking my head at a lot of the comments here. It just seems like a lot of anecdotal stuff, loaded with hyperbole, that a quick google search would dissuade you of. First no one, even adjusted for today's dollars were trillionaires. Rockefeller's adjusted worth was ~$340B. And most of these people, once you get to that point want to leave a legacy and a ton of the money get's donated to public causes anyways. Essentially serving the same purpose as taxes. Second the worth of the world is ~$200T, so not sure where the Rothchild's having double that comes in.

Third, the rich people pay in both absolute, and percentage wise more tax than everyone else. Something like 2/3rds of the population in the west take more out of the system than they contribute, is that fair?

Who are all these rich fucks you speak of? Given that the average household income in the US is like 50k, and "6 figures is nothing for a single guy" than how the fuck are the other 90% below that and who have families getting by? 6 figures easily puts you in the top 10-20%, and when you say 'make the rich pay' I assume you mean the people just a hair above where you're currently sitting.

While I have my own thoughts on fractional reserve banking and the fed, I also see a value the banking system provides. Europe came to the forefront over 1000 years without banks? Would that be the stagnant dark ages between when Rome fell through the Renaissance? An excellent book and documentary is "The Ascent of Money" which talks a lot about this very thing, but to say there's no value is again nonsense. The money lending provided by the Jews and the Medici's were instrumental in making society grow.

I always laugh when people say the Asians are driving up the prices of homes in Canada. Why did the US have that huge crash then? I'd think Asians would much rather go there? Especially now given that the average US house is like half the price of a Canadian one? Or maybe it's a conspiracy with all the old people. They have secret meetings how they can stick it to young people.

Wealth taxes are stupid. That just encourages people to but depreciating assets instead of income producing ones since they're going to be worth less in a year anyways. Then, the people with money instead of investing in oil refineries (a good thing if you like have lots of oil available to buy) will just buy liquor and rims instead. Less oil on the market raises the price, and hurts everyone just a little bit. Would regular people also pay a wealth tax? A portion of the retirement fund gone each year just because? Or is like all well thought out financial policy where it only affects the arbitrarily defined 'rich'?

The issue in my opinion is much simpler. It all goes back to human nature. Housing prices in Canada are spiraling out of control because people see huge price growth, and they pour in regardless of costs or logic because they want a slice. Simple greed causing a self perpetuating ponzi scheme. People lack the wherewithal to look at things objectively, rather look at things in the light that helps them/conforms to their biases, and which would just as easily be flipped if on the other side.

I remember one study where people were asked what they thought the average income was or at what income you're a 1%er. In both cases they were grossly over estimated and I see that here. People have it pretty good in the west (material-wise) but call it jealousy or keeping up with Jones's or whatever they don't see it. Everyone loves to play the victim and think how hard they have it, loves to think what they've overcome. Far easier to bitch about the rich when you make 100K if you're convinced you're only low average.

A slight aside, I asked a bar owner friend once what the deal was with 'mandatory 18% tip on parties of 8 or more', because to me it seemed unfair to force a tip. He explained that the reason for that was something called 'groupmath'. Large groups often split the bill, and on shared dishes, people always underestimate what they ate, underestimate their share of the bill, and overestimate what portion that their contribution represents. Everyone think's they're paying their share + good tip, when in fact, barely the bill is covered. Then the staff get stiffed. Country wide taxes are the ultimate example of group math. Mr 75k says "Why should I have to pay for all the bums while the rich pay nothing!" when in fact he's not even paying to cover himself.

Anyways, apologies for the rant, bottom line is the system ain't perfect, but I think it's one of the best out there, and you're alive at one of the safest, most prosperous times in human history, so relax.

Neat pic though, my dad actually found a hockey pay stub of some player when he was at a hotel in St. Louis in the early 90s. As a 9 year old that quantity of money blew my mind.

Post: #39

Quote:(Ironically, in the process, making a generalization just as carelessly worded as the claim that banks are "vital")

Which is why I said banking is vital, as in the provision of financial services (two of which you mentioned). Someone has to provide these services. Whether you call the service providers "banks"... a rose by any other name...

Post: #40

(05-23-2015 11:03 PM)Seadog Wrote:  I'm shaking my head at a lot of the comments here. It just seems like a lot of anecdotal stuff, loaded with hyperbole, that a quick google search would dissuade you of.

Wikipedia research.

Post: #41

(05-23-2015 09:07 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  Wow, Shocked that someone here knows about Arcadia lol

Some areas profit massively from foreign investment - everywhere the super-rich purchase real estate.

If anyone wonders how the Chinese make so much money - it is simple. When you move most of the manufacturing capacity of the world to China, open up tariffs without opening theirs you have this glorious system of "competition".

Of course no one should accuse the Chinese doing what comes naturally.

Post: #42

(05-23-2015 06:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 06:15 PM)marty Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 05:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:41 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Tariffs: What if other states just stop doing business with you to avoid the tariffs and find other trading partners?

I'm convinced a tariff is the beginning of a solution. Judging, if for no other reason, by who opposes it. First they imported low-wage, low-skill labor from abroad (agricultural, domestic work). Then, they exported skilled (manufacturing) and white-collar labor (programming). The result is a bunch of thirsty workers fighting over the scraps. Yet we still elect a Bush or Clinton (or Obama) into office, thinking that this Goldman Sachs-funded automaton will be different.

Tariffs would not hurt that much, but there's no way tariffs alone could support the current leviathan state we have in it's present state. Only a net-worth tax could make do, and only a net-worth tax is fair because it taxes evenly and lifts the burden of taxation off the middle class and poor.

I fail to see how any tax system is "fair". How is net worth tax any fairer than a fixed base tax that's the same for everyone. Ok, you will say the point of that is to help the poor. Let's assume this is true. Why should someone pay x% after his total net worth? Should someone pay for the same things (infrastructure, education, etc.) 10x more taxes if he makes 10x? Why? Because it's fair? Pumping back money from the rich to the poor is only a band-aid for the poor. Everyone living equally with equal amount of money is a pure fantasy, nothing more. We tried, it was even worse than democracy. It's called communism.

You're battling straw-men; no idea who you're even talking to. I'm talking about the best way to manage taxes in a world that needs government, then you start babbling about some imaginary utopia where no one needs to be taxed because it's not fair for anyone to be taxed and contribute to their community or something.

Try reading my posts and, before posting, read the posts back to yourself to see if they make any sense.

You said "Only a net-worth tax could make do, and only a net-worth tax is fair because it taxes evenly and lifts the burden of taxation off the middle class and poor.". I asked you how can a tax system be fair. Then instead of arguing, you brushed off my arguments that I'm blabbering about some utopistic world where no one needs to be taxed. Maybe you should read my comment again. No one said a word about this. I said that a flat tax or a regressive tax is not any less fair than a net worth tax. You really think that income inequality would cease to exist if the rich were to be taxed even more?

Post: #43

delete

Post: #44

(05-23-2015 06:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:43 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 03:25 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:Meanwhile, unproductive leeches like bankers are making money hand over fist and pay a fraction of what the dude breaking his back for his new business, that he built off the ground and actually contributes to society, does.

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "bankers", but banking is a vital part of society.

I find it equally laughable that you do not see the necessity of a stable banking system to a free and prosperous society. Although I am worried about current economic policies such as ZIRP/NIRP, banning cash, QE, etc, they do not change the fact that banks add value. Just off the top of my head:

1) Safe place to store your wealth
2) Facilitate easy access to your wealth
3) Provide financing for all sorts of endeavors
4) Manage financial risks (which is the most important)

Apparently your historical knowledge is lacking. Most civilizations have done well without any form of mass banking, including the West. Christianity enforced anti-Usury laws across the West for 1000 years, and during that time Europe became a powerhouse. There's nothing necessary about banking.

Is it convenient to have banks? Sure. Is it good? Probably not. Is it vital? Definately not, which is what you originally said and is a laughable, easily contradicted assertion.

You lack historical knowledge. Only after the credit system was put into place countries economies could actually start to grow.