[PassedOut]

Regarding taxes, I just read a piece by Reed Hastings, president of Netflix: Please Raise My Taxes

Quote

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Quite sensible. I believe Warren Buffet recommends something similar.

[Winstonm]

What no one is admitting is that when mark-to-market accounting is used our banks are insolvent. We keep chipping away at icebergs with a pair of ice cube tongs. We overpay with taxpayer money and get virtually nothing in return, while keeping the same management in place who created the problems in the first place.

It's a game - protect the investors and to hell with the taxpayer.

The best solution is to nationalize the banks, toss out the incompetent magagement, and eradicate the shareholders values. Then we can recapitalize and start fresh.

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Feb 6 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

Quote

Finally, Obama is demagoging the hell out of this issue. Pass the stimulus now or the world will end!

Don't make this Obama's issue - this was Exactly the same claims made by Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke in getting the first TARP shoved through Congress.

Given that he is the one currently doing it, it is an Obama issue. Bush and the rest of them were just as wrong for what they did.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on Feb 6 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

Regarding taxes, I just read a piece by Reed Hastings, president of Netflix: Please Raise My Taxes

Quote

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Quite sensible. I believe Warren Buffet recommends something similar.

For the youngsters who never had the pleasure:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jzLry3ABpV0

Here in Maryland we pay a state tax and a piggyback county tax and when added to a 50% federal tax it could become a disincentive. Still, I live in Maryland rather than some tax free place like Las Vegas because (a.) my kids and grandkids are here and (b.) I can't stand Las Vegas. So we don't make all of our decisions on the basis of profit/loss.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Feb 6 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

Regarding taxes, I just read a piece by Reed Hastings, president of Netflix: Please Raise My Taxes

Quote

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Quite sensible. I believe Warren Buffet recommends something similar.

It would be nice to tax Buffet's gifts at 70%.

I have no problem with lowering income tax rates.
Between 35% fed tax....state tax...Corporate tax which really customers pay(no customers....no tax to pay)....some city, county tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, social security tax,..add in license and usage fees.........that seems like a good start on taxes....


I say let people earn alot more and tax them less on what the earn.....just tax them when they spend or gift it.....

btw if the goal is to get the consumer to spend more, alot more, tax them less when they spend....you can always tax it when they try to gift something....to someone or something.....

tax labor or making money less and gifting money much more.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 6 2009, 07:57 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 6 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

Regarding taxes, I just read a piece by Reed Hastings, president of Netflix: Please Raise My Taxes

Quote

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Quite sensible. I believe Warren Buffet recommends something similar.

It would be nice to tax Buffet's gifts at 70%.

I have no problem with lowering income tax rates.
Between 35% fed tax....state tax...Corporate tax which really customers pay(no customers....no tax to pay)....some city, county tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, social security tax,..add in license and usage fees.........that seems like a good start on taxes....


I say let people earn alot more and tax them less on what the earn.....just tax them when they spend or gift it.....

btw if the goal is to get the consumer to spend more, alot more, tax them less when they spend....you can always tax it when they try to gift something....to someone or something.....

tax labor or making money less and gifting money much more.

Before changing the tax codes, the requisite is to determine how much government we want and need. Only after the size of the government is determined will we know how much tax revenues are required.

[Winstonm]

further rantings of pearlstein on stimulus obstruction by Rebublicans:

Quote

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

further rantings of pearlstein on stimulus obstruction by Rebublicans:

Quote

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

I've been wondering why Obama doesn't emphasize that point. Maybe because he has his own tax breaks in there.

But the republican push to replace spending with tax cuts is utterly stupid. I go back and forth on whether the republicans in congess are really stupid or just consider voters to be stupid. Probably some of both...

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

further rantings of pearlstein on stimulus obstruction by Rebublicans:

Quote

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

I've been wondering why Obama doesn't emphasize that point. Maybe because he has his own tax breaks in there.

But the republican push to replace spending with tax cuts is utterly stupid. I go back and forth on whether the republicans in congess are really stupid or just consider voters to be stupid. Probably some of both...

I think they are not stupid but trapped by ideology. It is important to keep in mind the overriding concern of the politician - re-election. All else is a distant second. Any Republican who breaks from the fold loses the support of the orchestrated demagoguery and propaganda that supports the message.

To a great deal all parties have metamorphasized into Bumper Stickers as policy and sloganeering as agenda entities of no real beliefs - they believe (or claim to do so) whatever it is their handlers (the money, lobbyists) want them to believe, and whatever they advertise as the planks of their platform are designed solely on ease of repeatability and electibility of message.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

further rantings of pearlstein on stimulus obstruction by Rebublicans:

Quote

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

I've been wondering why Obama doesn't emphasize that point. Maybe because he has his own tax breaks in there.

But the republican push to replace spending with tax cuts is utterly stupid. I go back and forth on whether the republicans in congess are really stupid or just consider voters to be stupid. Probably some of both...

I almost choked when I read the new RNC chair's first radio address. Here was my "favorite" part:

Quote

...
[desired Republican-supported tax cuts, ie the 'good ideas' in the next sentence]
...

Good ideas… lots of them… all left out of this plan by the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans stand ready to work with reasonable Democrats to do what is right for America.

But it will take more than bipartisan words from the President. It will require fair-minded action from Democrats in Congress.

In other words, "Democrats are just partisan politicians because they are using their majority to pass their agenda to fix the economy, even though Republicans object to it. Republicans are bipartisan politicians because we are willing to allow Democrats to join our minority and support our agenda to fix the economy, even though Democrats object to it."

Uh, hypocritical much?

[pigpenz]

Winstonm, on Feb 6 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

I am a little surprised no one has hit upon this line:

Quote

It turns out that those inflated pay stubs weren't really a measure of genuine economic worth but manifestations of the mirage that was the bubble economy. Economically, they are no longer sustainable;

at the NY Times pointed out that was all true but the money paid to the people who did this was real money

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

further rantings of pearlstein on stimulus obstruction by Rebublicans:

Quote

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

I've been wondering why Obama doesn't emphasize that point. Maybe because he has his own tax breaks in there.

But the republican push to replace spending with tax cuts is utterly stupid. I go back and forth on whether the republicans in congess are really stupid or just consider voters to be stupid. Probably some of both...

I almost choked when I read the new RNC chair's first radio address. Here was my "favorite" part:

Quote

...
[desired Republican-supported tax cuts, ie the 'good ideas' in the next sentence]
...

Good ideas… lots of them… all left out of this plan by the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans stand ready to work with reasonable Democrats to do what is right for America.

But it will take more than bipartisan words from the President. It will require fair-minded action from Democrats in Congress.

In other words, "Democrats are just partisan politicians because they are using their majority to pass their agenda to fix the economy, even though Republicans object to it. Republicans are bipartisan politicians because we are willing to allow Democrats to join our minority and support our agenda to fix the economy, even though Democrats object to it."

Uh, hypocritical much?

Downright delusional.

[mycroft]

Josh, that's what "bipartisan" has meant for the GOP for years - Democratic support for Republican policies. That's because their policies are Right, and anything else is Wrong.

Check out the voting records for Republican-sponsored bills (numbers of Democrats voting for) vs Democratic-sponsored bills (again, the number that "cross the floor", to use a Canadian term).