Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I didn't "defend" it in the sense that I thought it was a great idea. I said that given the situation, it was the best decision the government could make. Kind of like looking for the least ugly gal when the bar is closing.

.

We could have done this:
''Between 1989 and mid-1995, the Resolution Trust Corporation closed or otherwise resolved 747 thrifts''

There is still uncertainty in the economy because there are still toxicity in the assets. The next crisis is going to be governments for taking on all the debt from your beloved bankers

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Bank runs are ugly and extremely damaging to the economy. The way the bank deal was structured, the government will make money on the program as a whole (including AIG) and never took any real risk. Auto's are a cess pool and financially an entirely different deal. As we've discussed, the banks were a liquidity problem. The autos had/have a failed business model -- they will never be healthy until they fix it.

What you fail to address is "To Big To Fail". The auto's had a great business plan , just like their Bank buddies. All the top executives take all the money from the profits upfront. All the workers take their security from the profits from the company at the end of their working life. If there is not enough for the poor working stiff at the end of the day, it does not effect the CEO that has driven the truck off the cliff by 1) Not priceing the asset properly 2) Taking to much out of the profit in the form of executive bonuses because they did not price it proplerly.

That is why the Gini and difference between workers and CEO pay is so important.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

What you fail to address is "To Big To Fail". The auto's had a great business plan , just like their Bank buddies. All the top executives take all the money from the profits upfront. All the workers take their security from the profits from the company at the end of their working life. If there is not enough for the poor working stiff at the end of the day, it does not effect the CEO that has driven the truck off the cliff by 1) Not priceing the asset properly 2) Taking to much out of the profit in the form of executive bonuses because they did not price it proplerly.

That is why the Gini and difference between workers and CEO pay is so important.

Who is the "poor working stiff"? It ain't the "top executives" cause, according to you, they took all their money in the profits up front. And it aint the "workers" cause, again according to you, they take their security at the end of their working life. There ain't no bouncing ball or linier thought that makes any of that make any sense. Sounds to me like just another version of the same old "blame game" song.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Who is the "poor working stiff"? It ain't the "top executives" cause, according to you, they took all their money in the profits up front. And it aint the "workers" cause, again according to you, they take their security at the end of their working life. There ain't no bouncing ball or linier thought that makes any of that make any sense. Sounds to me like just another version of the same old "blame game" song.

Are you asking because you really want to learn something or are you just wanting to pull my lil lo chain?

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and go with the former. The ''poor working stiff'' is the trusting idiot that took their money on the back end. So that would be the 'worker' RK. For simplification let's say their is labor and there is management/investors. Now if and when the company goes belly up and there is not enough money in the pot to pay the workers and the government has to bail them out and the investors and mangement have already paid themself handsomely , just who then is the ''poor working stiff''? Hint here. One is the 'worker' and the other starts with 'tax' and ends with 'payer'. On a related not, that 2% of society that has benifited from the lopisided equation is now crying the loudest about a (potential) rise in their taxes! Talk about a great PR machine , 2% of the folks have gotten almost 50% of the nation to fall for their poor pitiful me BS. I take my hat off to them for that feat!

If it was the latter, well then I blame myself for wasting my precious time bothering to respond!

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

2% of the folks have gotten almost 50% of the nation to fall for their poor pitiful me BS.

That's not really that surprising to me. That 50% that is buying in to the "poor pitiful me BS"...as you call it...is same 50% that is paying all of the income taxes of this nation. That 50% actually believes in the "work for what you get" concept and they know they are helping to foot the bill for the other 50%. That other 50% doesn't pay any of the income taxes anyway, so all they want to do...is take away more from the paying 50% to give to the recieveing 50%.

Now folks...we can all take a bit of an intermission while Mr. WTF provides links ad naseum to graphical arts people that we have never heard of showing a bunch of other kinds of taxes that are paid by someone without really sourcing the data in a coherant fashion...all sprinkled in with comments about defense spending or oil companies or some other nonsensical rant. Wake me when its over.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Wake me when its over.

he is hard headed, he would have made a good nose guard but a lousey gambler...

for every fact and truth stated, he has another .."well what about this" for you, no matter its appropriateness, application or correctness.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That's not really that surprising to me. That 50% that is buying in to the "poor pitiful me BS"...as you call it...is same 50% that is paying all of the income taxes of this nation. That 50% actually believes in the "work for what you get" concept and they know they are helping to foot the bill for the other 50%. That other 50% doesn't pay any of the income taxes anyway, so all they want to do...is take away more from the paying 50% to give to the recieveing 50%.

Now folks...we can all take a bit of an intermission while Mr. WTF provides links ad naseum to graphical arts people that we have never heard of showing a bunch of other kinds of taxes that are paid by someone without really sourcing the data in a coherant fashion....

"Because most people are involved in preparing their progressive federal income taxes it is fairly well understood. And because most people are not involved in calculating their regressive taxes, it is fairly poorly understood"


I am sure you understand that RK (no need for a link or graph), but playing dumb is the only Defense you guys have. Talking about ALL taxes would not benefit your train of thought, it would only derail the myth of poor people not having to pay taxes. Again , just because most people do not understand how our tax system works is a huge advantage to the top 2% of taxpayers that you guys love to defend.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That 50% actually believes in the "work for what you get"

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

....

Yea poor people making 20k a year working in some housekeeping job are hardly breaking a sweat and should be taxed even more than their regressive taxes tax them.

What you really have is the top 2% fooling the other 48% into think they have anything in common. The 48% paying Federal income taxes have way more in common with the one that aren't paying it than the top 2%. Like I said , impressive PR machine the rich have going. They might even get some HDH's to buy into the BS.

No , emoticons this time ngiatjust the facts

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

"Because most people are involved in preparing their progressive federal income taxes it is fairly well understood. And because most people are not involved in calculating their regressive taxes, it is fairly poorly understood"

Well I don't know about you...but there is no way in the world I could ever prepare my income tax return. Way too many things on there for me to figure out.

But as far as being to figure out the other type taxes?...well, most every time I buy something they hand me a sheet of paper that has the sales tax right on it...so that's not too hard for me to figure out. And every time I pay a property tax they send me a sheet of paper that shows the appraised value and the property tax...so that's not too hard for me to figure out either.

If you want to talk about what is most understood...then I think that would be sales taxes. But maybe not for you. I get this feeling there is a whole lot of income that...how should we put it?...doesn't quite reach the reporting status.

Originally Posted by WTF

I am sure you understand that RK (no need for a link or graph), but playing dumb is the only Defense you guys have. Talking about ALL taxes would not benefit your train of thought, it would only derail the myth of poor people not having to pay taxes. Again , just because most people do not understand how our tax system works is a huge advantage to the top 2% of taxpayers that you guys love to defend.

You have no idea what the tax rate is for the top income earners...because you don't know what their total tax burden is.

Why shouldn't I get credit for the 7.5% social security tax I pay for each and every employee as an employer. No one else is paying it...I am.

What about any of the sales taxes I pay in any of my companies? I should get credit for that too...No one else pays it...I do.

The same thing goes for property taxes....and franchise taxes...and excise taxes...and severence taxes...and medicare and medicade taxes...etc. Attribute all of those taxes as a percentage against my ultimate personal income and the tax obligation that I pay because of my ownership is astronomical.

But you can't see that becuase all you think about is the consumer's tax burden. But there are layers upon layers of tax burdens that have already been collected...and paid by the owners...before it ever gets to the consumers.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Why shouldn't I get credit for the 7.5% social security tax I pay for each and every employee as an employer. No one else is paying it...I am.

Nope, that comes out of your employees hides, regardless of what the government calls it. If there was no employer SS tax, wages would be higher.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Nope, that comes out of your employees hides, regardless of what the government calls it. If there was no employer SS tax, wages would be higher.

Yeah & RK you need to separate business taxes from personal taxes. Granted you do pay the payroll taxes and other taxes but it is as an officer of your business not as an individual. Besides the numbers begin to get nonsensical. For example, and for simplicity consider if your only source of income was the net profit from a labor intensive, low margin concern (not so unrealistic, think a McDonalds franchise). Your "tax burden" would be larger than your income, a >100% tax rate. But at least in my view that doesn't make you any more taxed someone making a similar income getting a w-2.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Nope, that comes out of your employees hides, regardless of what the government calls it. If there was no employer SS tax, wages would be higher.

As they would say on court TV...your assuming facts that are not in evidence. I could just as easy argue that product and service costs would be less by that same amount. An employer pays an employee what the market requires...no more...no less. I know...I've got a lot of 'em. The employee sure only counts the money he gets. ask any employee what he makes...he'll tell you his gross salary. I've never heard him say...Oh yeah, pluse another 7.5% SS payment.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Yeah & RK you need to separate business taxes from personal taxes. Granted you do pay the payroll taxes and other taxes but it is as an officer of your business not as an individual. Besides the numbers begin to get nonsensical. For example, and for simplicity consider if your only source of income was the net profit from a labor intensive, low margin concern (not so unrealistic, think a McDonalds franchise). Your "tax burden" would be larger than your income, a >100% tax rate. But at least in my view that doesn't make you any more taxed someone making a similar income getting a w-2.

I would only be an officer of my company if I choose to form the company as a corporation or an LLC. As a sole propriatership I would not be an officer. Your talking form over substance. Corporations and partnerships are...for the most part...formed for liability and enterprise purposes. Absent those needs I could run everything I do as an individual. I pay the taxes. I'm responsible for them. They are taxed on my assets and upon the efforts of my enterprise. Again, as I said above...the end products of the goods and services might be cheaper if there were no such layering of tax burdens. But there is a layering...so it is moot.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

As they would say on court TV...your assuming facts that are not in evidence. I could just as easy argue that product and service costs would be less by that same amount. An employer pays an employee what the market requires...no more...no less. I know...I've got a lot of 'em. The employee sure only counts the money he gets. ask any employee what he makes...he'll tell you his gross salary. I've never heard him say...Oh yeah, pluse another 7.5% SS payment.

Sorry bud, regardless of what the employees say, pretty near 100% of economists agree that SS taxes are paid by the employee out of total wages. Sames with benefits -- employees don't acknowledge them either, but that and taxes are all part of the total cost of employment.

Think about it this way. If today you are paying someone salary of $60,000, taxes of $10,000 and benefits of $15,000, that is a total labor cost of $85,000. Apparently, they are producing some multiple of $85K in value or you wouldn't hire them. Now if you walked into the office tomorrow morning and benefits had disappeared and SS taxes were now 15% of employee pay, and nothing for the company, they would still be worth $85K cash pay to you.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I would only be an officer of my company if I choose to form the company as a corporation or an LLC. As a sole propriatership I would not be an officer. Your talking form over substance. Corporations and partnerships are...for the most part...formed for liability and enterprise purposes. Absent those needs I could run everything I do as an individual. I pay the taxes. I'm responsible for them. They are taxed on my assets and upon the efforts of my enterprise. Again, as I said above...the end products of the goods and services might be cheaper if there were no such layering of tax burdens. But there is a layering...so it is moot.

Well here I agree with you, but it is not because you are an officer of the company -- but because you are an owner. You pay corporate taxes to the extent you own the place. Again, that is a POV widely held by economists. Sales and excise taxes, being uniform for all suppliers are generally thought to be paid by the customer.

The argument about customers paying less is specious. Absent taxes, you may be willing to accept less price because after-tax returns are the only number that is meaningful. But by doing so, you would change the supply demand curve and have a different situation.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I would only be an officer of my company if I choose to form the company as a corporation or an LLC. As a sole propriatership I would not be an officer. Your talking form over substance. Corporations and partnerships are...for the most part...formed for liability and enterprise purposes. Absent those needs I could run everything I do as an individual. I pay the taxes. I'm responsible for them. They are taxed on my assets and upon the efforts of my enterprise. Again, as I said above...the end products of the goods and services might be cheaper if there were no such layering of tax burdens. But there is a layering...so it is moot.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well here I agree with you, but it is not because you are an officer of the company -- but because you are an owner. You pay corporate taxes to the extent you own the place. Again, that is a POV widely held by economists. Sales and excise taxes, being uniform for all suppliers are generally thought to be paid by the customer.

The argument about customers paying less is specious. Absent taxes, you may be willing to accept less price because after-tax returns are the only number that is meaningful. But by doing so, you would change the supply demand curve and have a different situation.

I'm not saying "you"/the business owner isn't paying these taxes.

I am saying that when we talk/argue/complain about "who pays what" the typical metric is taxes as a % of income. To lump in these business taxes, while you are writing the check, makes quantitiative comparisons meaningless. It becomes apples & oranges.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Sorry bud, regardless of what the employees say, pretty near 100% of economists agree that SS taxes are paid by the employee out of total wages. Sames with benefits -- employees don't acknowledge them either, but that and taxes are all part of the total cost of employment.

Think about it this way. If today you are paying someone salary of $60,000, taxes of $10,000 and benefits of $15,000, that is a total labor cost of $85,000. Apparently, they are producing some multiple of $85K in value or you wouldn't hire them. Now if you walked into the office tomorrow morning and benefits had disappeared and SS taxes were now 15% of employee pay, and nothing for the company, they would still be worth $85K cash pay to you.

Oh hell...I know all those supply and demand curves too. But no real person (I guess that would exclude an economist if they believe as you just said) really believes that if you remove 25% of the employee cost that such will not effect after tax profits of the business or reduce the product cost....probably both. I'm not sure how you can believe that everything else remains fixed when employee costs changes. That makes about as much sense as saying that if you increased payroll taxes by 10% to the employer that the only effect would be on increased product prices.

The rent I may pay is my cost...that employee is my cost...the paper and pencils I buy are my cost...the computer I buy is my cost...the cost of the tax burden is my cost too.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well here I agree with you, but it is not because you are an officer of the company -- but because you are an owner. You pay corporate taxes to the extent you own the place. Again, that is a POV widely held by economists. Sales and excise taxes, being uniform for all suppliers are generally thought to be paid by the customer.

The argument about customers paying less is specious. Absent taxes, you may be willing to accept less price because after-tax returns are the only number that is meaningful. But by doing so, you would change the supply demand curve and have a different situation.

I (or I guess in your view...my companies) pay very little corporate taxes. Virtually every entity I own is a flow through entity (Ltd partnership, partnership, S Corp or LLC). So the income tax is actually assesed on me...the individual...not some corporation. I also get credits and charges (and limitations thereon due to AMT and other tax regulations) on depreciation, and other tax preference items assesed at the individual level. Income and expenses flow through to me in the context from whence they came. It ain't dividend income. I wouldn't agree even if it were...but the fact that my structure demonstrates that these taxes are reported at the individual level shows how they are my costs.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'm not saying "you"/the business owner isn't paying these taxes.

I am saying that when we talk/argue/complain about "who pays what" the typical metric is taxes as a % of income. To lump in these business taxes, while you are writing the check, makes quantitiative comparisons meaningless. It becomes apples & oranges.

It is far from apples and oranges to me. All taxes are assesed on some individual. It would appear your view is they aren't assesed on consumers...and they aren't assesed on owners. I don't know who else there is. My view?...I own that piece of land that pays property tax...and I don't care whether I own it in an entity...or I own it in my name...it is still mine...and the tax assesed on it is still assesed on me.

And frankly...Uncle Sam agrees with me in this regard...because he lets me deduct it as an expense from my personal income tax.

It is a bit shocking to me that you all have bought into the fact that corporate or business taxes aren't really taxes assesed on anyone. They must be being assesed on the great bugaboo in the sky. Lets get the great bugaboo to pay all taxes. That way the rest of us won't have to.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Oh hell...I know all those supply and demand curves too. But no real person (I guess that would exclude an economist if they believe as you just said) really believes that if you remove 25% of the employee cost that such will not effect after tax profits of the business or reduce the product cost....probably both. I'm not sure how you can believe that everything else remains fixed when employee costs changes. That makes about as much sense as saying that if you increased payroll taxes by 10% to the employer that the only effect would be on increased product prices.

The rent I may pay is my cost...that employee is my cost...the paper and pencils I buy are my cost...the computer I buy is my cost...the cost of the tax burden is my cost too.



I (or I guess in your view...my companies) pay very little corporate taxes. Virtually every entity I own is a flow through entity (Ltd partnership, partnership, S Corp or LLC). So the income tax is actually assesed on me...the individual...not some corporation. I also get credits and charges (and limitations thereon due to AMT and other tax regulations) on depreciation, and other tax preference items assesed at the individual level. Income and expenses flow through to me in the context from whence they came. It ain't dividend income. I wouldn't agree even if it were...but the fact that my structure demonstrates that these taxes are reported at the individual level shows how they are my costs.



It is far from apples and oranges to me. All taxes are assesed on some individual. It would appear your view is they aren't assesed on consumers...and they aren't assesed on owners. I don't know who else there is. My view?...I own that piece of land that pays property tax...and I don't care whether I own it in an entity...or I own it in my name...it is still mine...and the tax assesed on it is still assesed on me.

And frankly...Uncle Sam agrees with me in this regard...because he lets me deduct it as an expense from my personal income tax.

It is a bit shocking to me that you all have bought into the fact that corporate or business taxes aren't really taxes assesed on anyone. They must be being assesed on the great bugaboo in the sky. Lets get the great bugaboo to pay all taxes. That way the rest of us won't have to.

Let me know when you are done editing your remarks and I will read your final version and respond