Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Taxing everyone more and more won't get you out of a recession. Learn from history

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 22, 2012, 3:34 p.m. EST by smartcapitalist (143)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Contrary to popular opinion over here, high taxation during recessionary may be counter productive. Read the article if you want to understand why.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574402822202944230.html

And if you want to know more, read this paper by Cary Brown http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811908

113 Comments

113 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Lowering taxes more and more won't create jobs. Learn from history.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

hear, hear. What we should focus on is redistribution: Taxcuts for the poor and working poor, and huge tax increases for the wealthy!

..and of course, in long term perspective, work for the free, egalitarian, classless, democratic society: libertarian socialism :)

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

yours s sff http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

And I should take your word for it?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

You're smart, right? You should be able to figure it out.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Enlighten me. I am all ears

[-] 3 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

It's pretty simple. Taxes are the lowest they have been in my lifetime. Unemployment is the highest.

[-] 1 points by thunk (15) 2 years ago

correlation =/= causation

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I think Mooks gave you your answer. Good night

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

High unemployment is part of the normal business cycle, this downturn is simply very deep. These same tax rates were in place in 2006 when the unemployment rate was near a 30 year low. I don't think you can draw any decisive conclusions from your observation.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Why are you for the government confiscating more of citizens money only to waste it?

[-] 5 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Because my generation is stuck paying for the previous generation's mistakes. They thought it would be a good idea to fight wars on credit because they didn't want people to recognize the waste until afterwards. It was actually a brilliant move. Manipulate a tragedy to get the country to back imperialistic wars and put it on the credit card so they can blame it all on the next prez when the bills come in.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Why not downsize the government so it does not have to confiscate the property of the citizenry? Why must the solution be to grow government ever larger to take more property and rights from you and me?

[-] 3 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

It's not an either/or. Sure, "downsize" the government by eliminating 90% of the military and let's quit having military bases all around the world, endless wars all around the world, and Corporate Welfare that could create literally billions of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens".

Then we'll talk.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Why are you for corporate gangsters confiscating everybody's money only to waste it?

Those seem to be the two choices, to your mind.

I'd rather the government took my money. That way they can make tanks, bombs and kill lots of brown people! C'mon, aren't you FOR THAT?? Feel the hate!

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

What's your problem with "brown people"?

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

I don't like blowing them up, from afar, with robots.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I am not. I am against empowering government. You seem to be the one who wants to empower government to take private sector money.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

And I said that ... where?

You seem to full of a lot of strawmen today.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by Nordic (109) 57 minutes ago

Why are you for corporate gangsters confiscating everybody's money only to waste it?

Those seem to be the two choices, to your mind.

I'd rather the government took my money. That way they can make tanks, bombs and kill lots of brown people! C'mon, aren't you FOR THAT?? Feel the hate!

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Come back when you've raised your IQ at least ten points, okay?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I would put my IQ up against yours any day. You ain't all that, bucko.

You didn't even acknowledge the statement you made about about preferring the government taking your money over preferring to choose where to spend your money. That is fine, if you want to give your money to the US government, you are free to give any amount in addition to the taxes you are REQUIRED to pay. Do you? Do you give the US government additional money over and above your tax obligations? I doubt you do, but if you tell me you stroke a check as a charitable act, I will believe you.

On the other hand, I am not REQUIRED to buy an item or give my money to a corporation (except the new mandates for Obamacare insurance companies). One (the government), I am compelled to forfeit my hard earned money to, the other (corporations), I have the ability to choose who I spend my money with.

However, I do give what I can to charity. I am not trying to make myself as any Bill Gates of JD Rockefeller, but I try to give something as a gift of my time or money.

It boils down to a matter of choice; You can choose to support the government and their ability to compell you at the point of a gun to surrender your property to them, or support the private sector and your ability to choose where to spend your hard earned money.

I prefer choice over being compelled. I prefer selecting where to apply my charity dollars over having infinite layers of bureaucracy dictate where the money I have been relieved of is spent.

Now, maybe you can showcase your supposed mental superiority by responding to why, specifically, you prefer the government stripping your money from you rather than choosing where to apply your hard earned money.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Really? Can you find a coffeepot to buy that isn't made in China?

Go for it.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

WOW! You really are a Mensa!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

money is a hard concept for me

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

It would be better to share the profits. Profits are at an all time high, yet wages are declining. Come on greedy corporations pay your workers a wage they can live on.

If you don't, then we'll need your taxes raised.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Just getting corporations to pay taxes would be an accomplishment!

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1kKEcWnDK

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

I've seen that. It's outrageous. And, they have the nerve to pay measly wages to their workers while enriching their executives. Americans must wake up to this.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure. But that would not be possible. Say some corporation, out of altruism, decides to decreases the salaries of the managers and pay workers higher, what would happen? considering the manager to worker ratio of say 1:10,000 or more you would have to decrease the salary of the CEO by 1,000,000 before each of those workers see a $100 rise in their annual salaries. Of course you can argue that there are other managers too besides the CEO and we can cut all their salaries. Great. So what would happen? The CEO would now be in a situation where he is paid far less than the CEO of his competing firm to do the same work. It is very likely he will seek job elsewhere with a competitor or another company. And with those lower salaries it would be impossible for that company to hire qualified people at middle and higher management. Gradually the company will fall in bad times because of poor or non-existent leadership and the whole company would go bust, and everyone down to the last worker would be jobless. And of course once you start distributing larger and larger portion of profits among employees, the share price would go down and soon enough the stock would be junk. But hey, who cares if the company goes bust or shares become worthless as long as whiners are happy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 2 points by shooz (17910) 2 years ago

Ahhhhh, wonderful.

The last word was said by the gangsters on WallStreet.

You don't pay the constantly rising vig, and they call in their "investment loan", and break your companies legs.

Of course if the "loan" is big enough, they'll spare little expense to bring in all kinds of "muscle" to help you break the union, as that's a pretty nice vig.

They can even get you to shill for them, and they didn't have to pay you.

Such is the "romance" of the mobster.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

So when I tell my son he shouldn't smoke cigarettes, and he tells me "but all the other kids are doing it!" I should sit back and go "oh gosh, you're right! If all the other kids are doing it, it's OK!!!" Hell, I should hand him a twenty so he can go buy more! Good kid!

"Dumbcapitalist".

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Wrong comparison.

It's more like if your son says all his friends are taking extra classes and you dont allow him to, then you are a bad father (which i strongly suppose you are). Tell me, what did you make of your kids? What are they doing now?

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Here's a better comparison. It's like my kid ganged up with some other bully kids and started stealing everyone's lunch money.

He came home and showed me the cash and said "hey, I should get in on this, if I don't, I miss out!"

And I say "GOOD BOY!"

That's you. That's how you'd do it if it was your kid

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Man you are so jealous of us. It's so pathetic, it's funny

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Yes. I'd love it if the CEO's would cut their pay. Damn, yes. But, I'm talking about the profits. The profits are determined after everyone is paid and they're at record highs. The article about Apple (I can't read the whole thing right now, don't have time) seems great at making my points about the problems of capitalism. It seems Apple makes profits equal to $400,000 per employee and doesn't really care about American workers whatsoever.

If that CEO cut his pay and shared with his workers perhaps his workers would become more motivated and the company's profits would skyrocket. Who knows? But, with one-half of Americans earning less than $26,000 per year in the 21st century we should all be whining!!! We need to figure this thing out. We cannot go on like this.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

profits do not exist to be distributed among the employees. They exist to be ploughed back into the business and make the business grow. If you read that article, it should explained to you why Apple does not do manufacturing in US and those reasons are going to persist, they are real reasons and no amount of protesting and sloganeering will change that. Get real, a company needs to save up money and not distribute them among it's employees. If only pay someone as much as it takes to retain them or as much as they are valued to the company. If you paid the CEO lower he/she would have no reason to continue with the company and will seek work at a place where capabilities are better valued. Same goes for the lowest worker. If he/she thinks they deserve more, they can leave the job and go to some place which might be willing to pay them more. That's real world.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

BULLSHIT Profits are sucked out at maximum rates and minimum taxes to benefit management and preferred stockholders. "Growth" most often takes the form of hostile takeovers of competitors to steal their market share, after which their employees are fired.

It's not the amount of pay that is the issue, it is the amount of taxes on that pay. The highest taxes rates in the US, 70-90% between 1945 and 1980, paid the national debt down from 120% of GDP to almost 30%, built a nationwide infrastructure and a thriving middle class during the most stable and sustained period of high economic growth ever.

Every time I bring this up, DeludedCapitalist vaporizes into thin air because these historical facts contradict his hallucinations.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago
  1. You need to take a course in CorpFin. Most investors arent bothered about dividends, they care about the stock price. And that depends majorly on how earning are reinvested in the business. The result of your jibber jabber about 'hostile takeover" is basically nonsense and shows that if nothing else, you watch a lot of movies and TV shows

  2. As for tax rate right after WW2, you are mistaking between causation and correlation. In fact, I am surprised someone can be so naive.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

That's changing fast as investors realize that dividends are gold, and the stock price is bullshit and completely untrustworthy.

Get with the present. The 1990's are over. They were a fluke. Like tulips in the 1600's.

"Dumbcapitalist"

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Really? Are they now? Hold on, who the hell are you to tell me that? How much did you trade today? Nothing. Then shut up. Stop making a fool of yourself with such comments.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

About 60% of the 7,000,000,000 average daily share volume is high-frequency trading, in which each "investment position" is held only for very brief periods of time - even just seconds - and rapidly trades into and out of those positions, sometimes thousands or tens of thousands of times a day.

Retired people are extremely concerned with dividends, as that is often a if not the primary source of their income.

You need to take a course in reality. Either that or you need to share some of whatever hallucinogenic shit your smoking because it is radical.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

HFT does not have anything to do with dividends. It is basically used to exploit the smallest of arbitrage opportunities in the market.

Instead of dividends retired people can simply sell their stocks if they want money. Dividends are as it is pretty small.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

High-frequency trading is now the majority of stock transactions, but you summarily dismiss it because it disproves your position. Go figure ...

The idea of a dividend is provide a return on investment. Selling an investment will, depending on price, will return either a profit or a loss at the expense of any income stream that investment provided.

You sir, are not just a deluded capitalist, you are an ignorant fool.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

HFT is used mostly in equity and bonds and there is enough noise on how it does or does affect stock prices. It doesn't matter. It's a fact of life now and most hedge funds use it for exploit short lived arbitrage. But that is just one part of equity trading. The other part is where analysts and traders take judgement calls on the price of a stock based on research/analysis. Both exist.

Shareholder care about dividends only if the company has matured (stagnant stock price) or is declining (lower stock price). For a company on a growth trajectory looking at dividends would be foolish. It is far better to invest the earnings in operations which would earn higher returns for investors instead of paying dividends. Microsoft paid dividends for the first time in 2002 but that did not stop people from buying the shares because the stock price was always soaring.

And you are the edge of my patience and good nature. I still explained to you because you are not a fin guy despite your colorful statements. Do not count on my good nature any further. Now I have work to do. We do not lead the leisurely lives of engineers.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Your "one part of equity trading" is over 60% of equity trading.

All of the rest is immaterial as the stock market has evolved into a massive con game in which the illusion of riches entices people to put money into something too good to be true. Insiders are the ones who make money, and the do it by fleecing the public at large.

As an investment professional you should be proud.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

The CEO is an employee, dumbass. Why should the CEO and his cronies embezzle all the profits through their "bonuses"?

Dumbcapitalist.

And why should an American corporation be allowed to sell its products in the U.S. if it deliberately bypasses U.S. laws in order to make its products with child labor and by breaking environmental laws?

"Dumbcapitalist"

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

More nonsense. Do you ever talk sense? Or may be you have an IQ of 60 (70 is mentally retarded)

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

You're losing when you resort to ad hominems and calling people "retarded".

Please answer the question. You can't just call it nonsense, it's actually an excellent question.

You think you're such a smartie, do you even know about the American School of economics?

Here, I'll be your mom and serve it up to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Here's a quote:

"During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s."

So why was this dismantled by right-wingers in the U.S. starting with Nixon? And has been dismantled by all of the corporatists, both R's and D's, ever since? Why are you apparently OK with the United States of America being sold for parts? It's only enriching a VERY FEW people, who you seem to worship for some bizarre reason.

Again, why are you okay with the destruction of the United States economy? And why do you approve of the crimes of the CEO class?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Now you are just being incoherent.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Obviously you are challenged in the reading-comprehension department.

And you have never heard of the American System. Which is just pathetic. You have no right to even spread your opinions here if you haven't heard of that.

You continue to fail, utterly, to address the questions I ask of you. I've been very direct, very clear, and your response are nonsensical ad hominems and avoidance.

It's clear who and what you are.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The CEO is an employee, dumbass. Why should the CEO and his cronies embezzle all the profits through their "bonuses"?

If the shareholders don't like it, they can always fire them.

And why should an American corporation be allowed to sell its products in the U.S

You think American companies should only be allowed to sell products to other countries?

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

If they break American laws to make the products, of course, why should they be allowed to sell those products in the U.S.?

It makes no sense.

Okay, let's say we decide to let them sell them here. Then they should pay a fine. A big one.

You'd have jobs back in this country pretty damn quick.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

If they break laws, they should be punished by the extent of the law.

Your original sentence that I quoted said nothing about breaking the law.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Come on. Apple has more money in the bank than the U.S. Treasury. Surely it could share it's profits a bit more or maybe hire a few Americans.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Apple hires a lot of Americans. What are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Yes. I should have said a few more.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Please explain why should Apple hire more people when it does not need to? A job is supposed be that, a job. It's not an entitlement. As for Apple's cash reserve of around $40bn, it has kept that money for future expansions, acquisitions, buying patents (or waging patent wars) or as contingency in case their company faces bad times. The money is not supposed to distributed away . Apple is not Santa and it's not Christmas. Besides unemployment in the hi-tech sector is around 4% so there is no reasons to worry.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Why should Apple be allowed to use child labor to make its iPhones, and sell them in the U.S., when child labor is illegal in the U.S.?

And if you're a CEO, a job certainly IS an "entitlement"! A big gravy train where you can embezzle millions and millions and call it your "BONUS"

CEOs should be employees just like everybody else.

Why do you think they're so special? "Dumbcapitalist"

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Quite obviously, you are one of those laid off workers who resent management. I can at best sympathize with you but not much else. I am sure a CEO's job might appear to you to be a 'entitlement' a free ride. All losers think that way. oh, FYI CEOs are employees too.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

So you admit CEOs are employees, as I have already pointed out to you repeatedly. Yet you also state that they are subject to their own rules, and not the rules of the other employees. They are allowed to take profits for themselves (embezzlement) rather than pay dividends to the shareholders. Why do you think that is okay? Should a CEO be allowed to make 350 times more money than a worker in the company? Should any of them be making a million dollars a week? Why?

Didn't you learn anything in kindergarten when they taught you about sharing? Apparently not.

You are an amoral sociopath.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

What I meant is that they should move jobs from overseas back to America.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

That article already provides a good explanation why that won't be possible. Please come back into the real world. In real world, investors pay you to make products at the cheapest possible cost and not for a foolish display of altruism. Besides, the way things are, we cannot hope to match the chinese in manufacturing. It's not as easy as you think it is.

And I need to get back to work. This is getting out of hand. Cya

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

The article fails to mention how 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps, one-half of all Americans earn a paltry $26,000 per year or less, 22% of American children live in poverty, etc. etc. I don't worship corporations. I think corporations are part of our economy and I think our economy should work for the greater good.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

last reply from me for now. got a report to write

Yes, the economy works for the greater good. Which is preferable to you? That we manufacture a car for $15000 which the Japanese would do for $7000? Do you think there would be any buyers for that car in the international market? Not to mention in trying to manufacture in America, these companies would have to spend heavily on infrastructure eroding their cash reserves (if any) and putting them in huge amount of debt. Our auto industry would then have to simply shut shop, just because some misguided youngsters like you think protesting can change reality. So for the interest of a few otherwise jobless workers, the whole company shuts shop and no one now has a job. And then the market will be left for the Japanese and Chinese manufacturers. Awesome.

Get real.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Right, the greater good is to hire 13 year old girls in China and pay them 50 cents an hour and work them 80 hour weeks, waking them up in the middle of the night to make changes to the phones that yuppies in American can buy?

How is that "the greater good?"

It's child labor, it's illegal here, so it should be illegal to sell products here MADE WITH child labor.

Pretty simple, pal.

What the fuck is wrong with your brain that you think this kind of thing is for the "greater good"?

What kind of MOTHER did you have???

I think you must have been abandoned by your mother and raised in the gutters somewhere if you think this is OK. And the "Greater Good"?

Your thinking is that of a monster. A sociopath.

"Misguided youngsters"? Right. I'm 50 years old and the more I learn and the more I read about how things really work, the more I realize that people like you are a danger to us all.

The CEO class and those who support them need to be exposed for what they are: SOCIOPATHS.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am not sure if they hire 13 yr olds. And you are right, it's a grave injustice to employ kids or make workers in third world country work overtime. Grave injustice. Kids should not be made to work. Wait? What would they do instead? They don't really have money for school and if these companies decided to listen to misplaced morality of Americans and laid them off, they won't even money for food. So your 13 yr old girl would very likely end up in a brothel, where she would be raped, beaten and then, if she is pretty, sold off to some other brothel in Hong Kong or Macau and who knows she might even end up in the US, illegaly. Now that would the greater good, is it?

Even if they made 50 cents an hour that comes up to $6 a day, which is enough for basic necessities in China and would put that worker well above the international poverty line. But no. We westerners, who not very long ago employed kids in factories under hazardous environment and owned slaves, just have to impose our holier-than-thou sense of morality.

As much as I detest child labor, the alternative is far worse. This ostrich mentality does not work. Just because your Nike isn't made by a child does not mean that child is now going to school and eating pasta for lunch. That child is very likely begging and malnourished to the point of starvation. All because of you.

Let's not get into mothers, either your or mine. At least my parents did not teach me camp in parks and beg for handouts, living like pigs. And they also taught me enough decency to not insult other's parents.

Just because you are a 50 yr old does not mean you can't be an asshole or a dumbass. Calling the successful people sociopaths may give you some solace and may help you justify your own lack of success, but not much else.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Wow. I can't believe you just said, out loud, in public, that you think a 13 year old girl, if she wasn't working in a factory, would be working in a BROTHEL.

Holy shit.

You are a real piece of work.

You don't think she might be at home with her parents? Where she belongs?

Holy shit you are a rotten putrid piece of human garbage!

You just proved it, it's fucking hilarious what I just got you to say.

And why do you keep insisting that I'm not successful? You have absolutely no idea who you're talking to. Shouldn't you have figured out that the fact that I'm about ten times smarter and better informed than you is a pretty good indication that I'm way ahead of you in other areas as well?

You're such a jackass.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

I am not a youngster, smartcapitalist. I would like to have less poverty in my country. Corporations are very wealthy. The folks at the top of the 1% are very wealthy. They can share. You get real.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure the top 1% can share. Similarly the kids in Africa can ask you to share. If you spare $1 a day, it is good enough to feed and educate one kid. Charity begins at home.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

There truly is no getting through to you.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

He's a sociopath. They all are.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Funny. He's not the worst one, though. There are worse!

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13552) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

we don't plan to tax everyone to get out of our national debt . . .

  • just you
[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I already pay more tax than your annual salary.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Yeah? Prove you're not sitting in your mother's trailer jerking off to a picture of Mitt Romney.

You can't prove that, can you?

Then quit making stupid grandiose claims.

"Dumbcapitalist"

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If I wanted to jerk off I would prefer Palin instead.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

That's probably the first truthful statement you've made here.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13552) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That isn't saying much.

If I made a million dollars in one year I probably would resent giving one third of it to the government - or whatever the rate is. There would be a most natural incentive to keep as much of it for myself as possible.

There would also be a tendency to overlook the obvious benefits I receive - from the government - benefits that provide social stability, and infrastructure that provides for an unparalleled access to the global market of goods and services - most of which I do not need but are really nice to have - sometimes.

The simple fact is that reaganomics don't work as advertised, and deregulation of the financial market has brought our economy to the brink of ruin.

I'm all in favor of a tax policy that is competitive with other nations in terms of tax rates for corporations and wealthy individuals - and I can't stand fools who simply ignore the necessity of curbs to power acquired by wealthy interests in the private sector any more than I can those who would simply break our government in the maintenance of that power.

Judging from your post I think that means you.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago
  1. I don't make a million dollars a year
  2. De-regulation has been mostly useful
  3. The whole rich people and government nexus is a little over played over here.
[-] 2 points by shooz (17910) 2 years ago

TAX everyone more and more?????

What are you? A (R)epelican!!!!??????

No, no we just want the guys at the top to stop playing hide the money and pay a tax burden, commensurate with their extraction.

Plus I want them the HELL out of government.

[-] 2 points by Lardhead2 (67) 2 years ago

Hmmm...no real answers.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The best way out of a recession is to encourage more corrupt politicians to fill the atmosphere with hot air. In fact Rush Limbaugh, sponsered by Rupert Murdoch, ought to run for President. That, in turn, will cause the poor to rise out of their miserable hovels on the wings of lying speeches and "news" articles and broadcasts.

Taxation has about as much to do with causing or curing recessions as with benefitting the needy. Politicians tax to benefit themselves and their sponsors. Anything that potentially may benefit the working class is labeled an "entitlement," like Medicare or Social Security, which are actually government-mandated social insurances, paid for by workers and their employers.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

No one ever complained about OWS asking for Medicare or social security. It's the demand for more salaries for flipping burgers, or free education, free house etc that is whining.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Strawman. Grow up. Learn how to argue.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Learn to be thankful. Here we are trying to get your 401k up and you are simply sitting on your ass and whining.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

I think you're trying to talk to someone else. I'm not sitting on my ass and I'm not whining. You however are bringing your sociopathic tendencies to this forum and trying to justify them.

I ask you: Why are you pro-crime? Do you not believe in the rule of law? Why do you think the CEO class is above the law? Why do you think it's ok to steal money?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I think you are delusional.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

So you're not going to answer my question?

Why do you think it's okay for Wall Street investment banks to conspire with ratings agencies to sell absolute JUNK bonds to retirement funds and rate them AAA knowing they are junk (and their e-mails prove it!)

Why are you okay with this?

Because you're jealous. You mentioned that in another thread.

You are a sociopath. Like them.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I think you refer some of the dubious practice where some firms sold CDOs of lower tranches by combing them with other lower rates CDOs and getting a AAA on the upper tranche. Yeah, that was wrong. Go prosecute them. They would deserve that.

Btw, I am jealous of who exactly?

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

You're jealous of the people who got away with it and made billions, and got bailed out by the government and then handed the billions out as "bonuses".

You've made it clear you're jealous, because you accused everybody else of being jealous.

We're not jealous. We have souls. We have a sense of right and wrong. We are not amoral.

You are.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Ohk. Now you are not even making sense. Just jibber jabber. Keep howling...may be someone will listen. Now I gotta get back to work.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Actually, I believe every American is entitled to the maximum possible wage, free higher education, free housing, free medical care, free food, free, free, free, but I haven't figured out who's going to pay for it: certainly not me.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thats right.. ending foriegn wars and foreign aid will though. thats a billion a month the government is wasting on the middle east.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I would like to add helping illegal immigrants.

[-] 1 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 2 years ago

Undertaxing the wealthy, a la dubya Bush, unleashed a ton of speculative driven money in search of higher returns, instead of being used making tax favorable expenditures such as those qualifying for the Investment Tax Credit, depreciation, business expenditures, hiring and the like.

The Bush tax cuts for the One Per Centers gave us the Great Recession while beating down 99% of the consumers in our consumer driven economy.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yeah right that was the reason for the recession. Please do publish your findings in a journal. I will read it for sure

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Just getting corporations to pay taxes would be an accomplishment!

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1kKEcWnDK

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1kKEcWnDK

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

where is the revelation here? All you had to do was to look at their tax filing or even easier annual reports.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The revelation is that American companies used to pay taxes! Now they don't ! If you make your money here - you can damn well pay taxes here too; just like the rest of us. What gives them the right to make they're money in this society; yet not contribute to it. It is obvious that corporations have caused us to have this revenue problem. No patriotism!

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Straw man. NOBODY is advocating taxing everyone more. Just the wealthiest.

(As to the WSJ article, Laffer has been debunked repeatedly.)

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Laffer makes me laugh repeatedly

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

here's a little different approach that might move us and the system forward in all directions ..

http://occupywallst.org/forum/an-occupation-on-the-edge-of-prosperity-draft/#comment-589115

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Does this approach have the backing of a panel of economists?

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Does this approach have the backing of a panel of charlatans?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

not yet... let's fix it up... finish designing it ..and get it...

besides I see better economists here than I do in the panels.. ;)

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am sure you see better economists here than anywhere else. In fact, if a poll were taken, Occutards would all unanimously agree that they are the smartest, most deserving set of people in the planet. And yet, inexplicably (a global conspiracy no less) they are unable to find employment or at the least a well paying job. Global conspiracy, I tell you.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

I've got a job. I make good money. I see crime running rampant at the tops of our corporatocracy. Why are you FOR this crime?

Don't you believe in the rule of law?

Why not?

"Dumbcapitalist"

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Dear NonDick, it is against the law to assault cops. It is against the law to throw a smoke bomb inside the white house. It is against the law to shit at a park or have sex in public. Vandalism is against the law. Occupying the Duetsche bank atrium is against the law. Creating a nuisance inside a bank is against the law.

And what you see in not crime. What your eyes see through the green tinted glass of jealousy are people more successful than you and you can't fathom why.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

The more you talk, the more you reveal yourself to be a sociopath.

See, sociopaths think that everybody else is just like them. That's the most bizarre thing about them.

You, sir, are jealous of those who have stolen billions of dollars and pretty much brought down the world economy to enrich themselves.

That is clear.

The rest of us? Not so much. I have a fine job, I make a fine living, but I believe in the rule of law, and I believe in prosecuting and jailing criminals, no matter how much their cars cost.

And it actually IS against the law to commit conspiracy to defraud.

That is what they did. Moody's was in on it. See the e-mails. They were knowingly selling junk to retirement funds and rating it AAA. They knew it was junk.

That's illegal.

And they will go to jail, eventually.

Remember Enron? You think those guys were good guys? Yes, you do.

This is like Enron, only about a million times bigger.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Valuation wise, 'it' (whatever 'it' is) is not a million times bigger. And being jealous won't make you rich or neither is the govt going to hand over money from the rich to the poor. Get real. Not happening.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Hm, last time I checked, they handed out trillions of dollars to the rich.

Where were you when that happened?

Not only were these people already rich, they had just destroyed the economy of planet earth.

81% of the people in this country at the time were utterly opposed to this.

Why aren't you?

Corporate Welfare. Check it out.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

At that time precisely, I was working for one of those alleged 'evil' ibanks. And guess what, we ordered pizza and beer with the bailout money.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hehe.... maybe so.... but I live in DC and have met many economists.... and 99% of them are set in their egotistical ways... will not bend or open to different ideas... here at least we have discussion ....

also btw, there are many here that neither want jobs or need them ... and there are many here that have not only jobs but their own businesses ...

[Removed]