Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
120 online now:
Coragyps, frako, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 111 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,049 Year: 2,797/23,288 Month: 988/1,809 Week: 107/313 Day: 24/39 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News (renamed)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 4891 of 5057 (871519)
02-04-2020 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4883 by Percy
02-03-2020 9:16 PM


Re: Paying down the National Debt, improving society
``
Don't know what it means to "lower their taxable value." Do you mean lower the amount they pay in taxes?

Lower taxable income by putting profit money where it isn’t taxed, either back into company (bonuses for employees etc) or some tax haven.

0% unemployment isn't achievable because people lose or leave jobs and it takes time to find another, and there is technological change, economic change (decline of steel industry and coal mining), personal situations, etc.

Everybody’s doing something, just some of it is not included in the $$ economy even though it supports it. Stay home parents for example. They aren’t unemployed. Same with artists. The emphasis on earning money imho damages to culture, creativity and wellbeing of people.

And IF having people unemployed is of value to the economy then they should be compensated.

I've never seen it argued that unemployment is of value to the economy.

You just said that 5% unemployment was considered good so that it prevented inflation, or did I misinterpret?

I'm reminded of the joke, "Under a communist system the Detroit Lions would win the Super Bowl every 16 years" (pick your sport and team), but I understand your point.

Well your joke misses the mark imho.

There is more to life than making money, the $$ economy ignores that.

Should every job pay a living wage? When you and I were kids there was such a thing as paperboys. There were tons of low paying jobs filled by teenagers.

And I spent half my earnings at the bakery next to the newspaper building every Saturday (yumm). But if someone spent 40 hours a week at it then yes it should be a living wage ... because they are spending their life to do it. If the employer is buying that time from the employee then they should be fairly compensated, because they can’t do anything else in that time.

Public support of art and culture is important. It was once a higher priority than it is today.

But it has never been considered a business equivalent occupation. Support has generally relied on the kindness of strangers — wealthy patrons, kings, etc.

Do you think pure science should be publicly supported or left to the likes of Monsanto for funding?

It’s a question of cultural values. Is becoming a money sucking CEO the best we can aspire to?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4883 by Percy, posted 02-03-2020 9:16 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4904 by Percy, posted 02-05-2020 11:20 AM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4892 of 5057 (871528)
02-04-2020 6:48 PM


Susan Collins Fails to Surprise. Again.
Why am I not surprised: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump of both articles of impeachment

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) from a purple state is walking a fine line by agonizing publicly over issues before the vote, then voting with Trump. She did this with the Trump tax cuts, she did this with Bret Kavanaugh, and now she's going to do it again with the impeachment trial.

Each time Collins repeats this pattern I send a donation to the Sara Gideon campaign, Collins opponent in the upcoming election. Gideon is currently Maine's Speaker of the House. Collins is perhaps the most vulnerable Republican in the Senate. She deserves to lose her seat not because she supports Trump but because of the duplicitous way she is doing it. Click here to donate to the Sara Gideon campaign.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4893 of 5057 (871529)
02-04-2020 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4868 by jar
02-03-2020 12:52 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
jar writes:

There is a simpler, fairer and faster fourth solution. Simply remove the Social Security Tax Limit.

God I loved that limit, but you might be right. Has anyone done the calculation to make sure that's sufficient to fix the problem? Or maybe the limit only has to be raised instead of eliminated.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4868 by jar, posted 02-03-2020 12:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4894 by Theodoric, posted 02-04-2020 7:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4895 by jar, posted 02-04-2020 8:16 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4905 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2020 11:21 AM Percy has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7043
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 4894 of 5057 (871533)
02-04-2020 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4893 by Percy
02-04-2020 6:51 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
Haven't run the figures but I think we can just raise the limit. Maybe double or triple.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4893 by Percy, posted 02-04-2020 6:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 4895 of 5057 (871535)
02-04-2020 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4893 by Percy
02-04-2020 6:51 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
And the actual tax rate is also subject to adjustment.

But of all the issues out there funding Social Security and Health Care are really among the trivial ones. Almost every other developed nation has solved those issues long ago.

Once again the US suffers from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4893 by Percy, posted 02-04-2020 6:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2215
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 8.1


Message 4896 of 5057 (871536)
02-04-2020 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4868 by jar
02-03-2020 12:52 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
jar writes:

Simply remove the Social Security Tax Limit.

According to one source removing the earnings cap would fund 67% if benefits are not capped according to earnings and 80% if capped for the next 75 years.

I also read the figure of 72% a few years ago but don't remember the source.

Apparently does not entirely solve the Social Security shortfall, but that 70% or so solution goes a long way.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4868 by jar, posted 02-03-2020 12:52 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4897 of 5057 (871539)
02-05-2020 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4872 by Theodoric
02-03-2020 2:15 PM


Re: CBO Proejcts Trump Trillion Dollar Deficits to Continue Indefinitely
Theodoric writes:

Seemingly you are not able to grasp the concept between high individual compensation, individual tax rates and corporate tax rates.

Interesting persuasive technique you've got there.

If income over 10 million is taxed at a substantially higher rate, corporations will be less likely to pay them this exorbitant amount because such a high percentage of it will go toward taxes. Instead of paying it to a few individuals they should be incentivized to spread it around or invest in capital projects.

Or they find non-taxable or lower taxable means of executive compensation, just like they did in the 1950's.

If their corporate tax rate is higher they are going to be incentivized to get that profit off the books by spending the money.

I agree that the higher the taxes the greater the incentive to reduce them, but I don't agree that spending the money is their only or best alternative. Here are some situations to consider.

Let's say the corporation figures it will have $100 million in profits for the current year and knows it will pay $20 million in taxes, netting them $80 million after taxes (the tax isn't necessarily paid in the same tax year in which the profits were made, but we'll skip that detail). There's a business in their industry they could buy for $100 million, but they decide against it.

Now, same situation except that there's a higher corporate tax rate and their taxes will be $50 million instead of just $20 million. How does that change the equation on purchasing that business?

Or same situation, but instead of purchasing a business they consider building another plant to increase production. Given that demand for their product isn't directly affected by their profits or tax rate, how would a change in tax rate change the equation for building another plant?

Or same situation, and let's say they spend all of what would have been a $100 million profit on something (doesn't matter what) but let's say their stock pays a dividend that depends upon profits. How are stockholders going to react to a reduction in profits? How will that affect the stock price? How will stockholders holding shares of lower value going to vote the next time a board of directors is elected?

Or same situation, but instead of purchasing a business they consider increasing rank-and-file compensation by $100 million. How does an increase in the corporate tax rate change the equation on doing that? Given the variability of corporate profits, what assurance can they give stockholders that they'll be able to sustain a level of corporate performance commensurate with the higher payroll? How will it affect their competitiveness going forward?

I don't pretend to have answers to these questions. I just raise them to point out that it isn't as simple as just spending the profits before they're made.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4872 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2020 2:15 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4901 by Theodoric, posted 02-05-2020 8:21 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4898 of 5057 (871540)
02-05-2020 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4878 by Faith
02-03-2020 3:59 PM


Re: The revelations will continue
Faith writes:

... regarding Presidential ­decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine,” Walsh wrote.

There it is, without the spin, thank you.

There what is without the spin? What you quoted is Walsh confirming the headlines where they say that the emails were about the Ukraine scandal. Here are the RawStory, CNN and Washington Post headlines:


They all communicate very similar and accurate information.

But now it would be nice if "the scope, duration and purpose of the hold" were made known.

Yes, I think we can all agree on that. We also agree that the Trump administration has mounted a strong legal defense to prevent this information from becoming public. Why do think this is?

Whatever the reasons we on the right know it was all perfectly correct and legal,...

As with most claims you make I have to ask: And you know this how? How can you know what the information is before it is released?

...and that only the left, -- a word you may not allow me to use? -- or the Democrats, try to make a criminal offense out of it.

If you actually followed the House and Senate impeachment proceedings you would know that Trump wasn't charged with any actual crime. He was charged with constitutional violations: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Which is all they've done for three years now and will no doubt continue to do for years to come, just making one innocent act after another into something criminal.

After the articles of impeachment were voted a court ruled that the withholding by the OMB of funds for Ukraine voted by Congress was a violation of law, a crime.

There ought to be a law against this so we could send all the Democrats to prison...

You *do* realize, I hope, that imprisoning your political opposition is what tinpot dictators do.

...or take away their outrageously extravagant salaries.

Congressional salaries are the same for all members of Congress regardless of political affiliation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4878 by Faith, posted 02-03-2020 3:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 4899 of 5057 (871541)
02-05-2020 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4884 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2020 10:52 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
Hyroglyphx writes:

If anything, she's lying to herself and tries to convince herself more than she is trying to convince you.

Faith has beliefs that come from within. No process of convincing is involved. Anyone who expresses opinions she agrees with is right because they are honest and truthful, and those expressing opinions she disagrees with are wrong because they are lying leftists who belong in prison.

It is possible to be sincere while also being sincerely wrong (inaccurate).

It is also possible to be sincerely wrong while constructively engaging in discussion.

This is also pretty typical behavior for her, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.

We shouldn't normalize (by judging it acceptable) the behavior of people like Faith or Trump.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4884 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2020 10:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4908 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-05-2020 2:28 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4900 of 5057 (871542)
02-05-2020 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4835 by Faith
02-01-2020 8:02 AM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
Faith writes:

Funny then that they do in fact add to the deficit. Duh.

To repeat something said earlier, and add a little to it, Social Security is not included in the federal deficit but is included in the national debt. But it isn't the full future obligation of Social Security that is included in the national debt, only the amount in the trust funds that are invested in special issue Treasury securities.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4835 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 8:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7043
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 4901 of 5057 (871543)
02-05-2020 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4897 by Percy
02-05-2020 7:15 AM


Re: CBO Proejcts Trump Trillion Dollar Deficits to Continue Indefinitely
Are you not the person that said?

I don't see how that relates to corporate tax rates.

You still seem unable to grasp the concept.

Or they find non-taxable or lower taxable means of executive compensation, just like they did in the 1950's.

Interestingly executive compensation was not rampantly out of control in the 1950's. So I do no think this is a very valid argument.
quote:
The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.

CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Ballooned 1,000 Percent Since 1950!


Ratio of average compensation of CEOs and production workers, 1965–2009. Source: Economic Policy Institute. 2011. Based on data from Wall Street Journal/Mercer, Hay Group 2010.

Now, same situation except that there's a higher corporate tax rate and their taxes will be $50 million instead of just $20 million. How does that change the equation on purchasing that business?

Unrealistic scenario. Companies do not buy other companies with cash. They finance them. Also, if this scenario was realistic it would fit into basic economics and taxes as I proposed. Buying the other company would reduce their tax burden because they spent the money to buy another company. Thus their taxable income is reduced because they spent the money to buy a new company instead of spending the money on taxes.

You seem to be missing the point that their tax burden is reduced because they would have bought that other company, built a new plant, rewarded their employees, paid out that dividend. Instead of giving their CEO an extra 50 million or spent 100 million to buy back stock to increase "share holder value". The higher tax burden increases the likelihood of all the things you mentioned happening. The lower taxes are preventing those things from happening because the money can be used for excessive executive compensation and stock buy backs, things that do not help the long term health of the corporation or the well being of workers.

You seem to be missing the basic premise of my point.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4897 by Percy, posted 02-05-2020 7:15 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4906 by Percy, posted 02-05-2020 12:59 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4902 of 5057 (871545)
02-05-2020 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4885 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2020 10:56 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

It appears you are correct. I cannot find anything that substantiates that it was first designed to be an opt-in program. I honestly have no idea where I heard that, but it must have been at least ten years ago and I failed to fact check it. Rookie mistake

I thought of a possibility where you might have picked up this idea and have confirmed it online. Changes to Social Security law in 1950 made it possible for members of some groups previously excluded to voluntarily opt in. Examples are government employees and members of non-profit firms. See The High Cost of Good Intentions (the link opens on the correct page, it's in the last full paragraph).

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Explain where information in book is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4885 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2020 10:56 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4909 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-05-2020 2:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4903 of 5057 (871546)
02-05-2020 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4889 by Faith
02-04-2020 2:51 PM


Re: Moderator Interaction Concerning Faith
Faith writes:

It doesn't seem to bother you, or even occur to you, that you might be expressing a biased partisan point of view against me.

The evidence of your own posts supports the accuracy of the observations about you.

I'm leaving.

I wonder what your rate of "stomp off in a huff" per year is?

If/when you return you might consider letting factual information creep into your discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4889 by Faith, posted 02-04-2020 2:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19426
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4904 of 5057 (871551)
02-05-2020 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4891 by RAZD
02-04-2020 4:08 PM


Re: Paying down the National Debt, improving society
RAZD writes:

Don't know what it means to "lower their taxable value." Do you mean lower the amount they pay in taxes?

Lower taxable income by putting profit money where it isn’t taxed, either back into company (bonuses for employees etc) or some tax haven.

It's isn't as simple as you think. Money paid for operating expenses isn't taxable, but money paid to expand the business is. Corporations can't make profits go away by investing in their business, something I just learned, which means I have to modify some of my response to Theodoric. Profits used to expand the business or purchase other companies are still profits.

Companies that diminish their profits by increasing employee compensation may find that they're both diminishing their competitiveness within their industry and foregoing opportunities for expansion of the business.

Companies that pay dividends will be discouraged from reducing profits, since dividends are paid out of profits.

0% unemployment isn't achievable because people lose or leave jobs and it takes time to find another, and there is technological change, economic change (decline of steel industry and coal mining), personal situations, etc.

Everybody’s doing something, just some of it is not included in the $$ economy even though it supports it. Stay home parents for example. They aren’t unemployed. Same with artists. The emphasis on earning money imho damages to culture, creativity and wellbeing of people.

But what happens to "culture, creativity and wellbeing" when there's insufficient income for food and shelter?

And IF having people unemployed is of value to the economy then they should be compensated.

I've never seen it argued that unemployment is of value to the economy.

You just said that 5% unemployment was considered good so that it prevented inflation, or did I misinterpret?

I think you misinterpreted. What I said in Message 4795 was:

Percy in Message 4795 writes:

But the full employment point is also considered the inflation threshold. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course. It just means that once you reach full employment that inflation becomes a risk that has to be carefully monitored.

Put another way, as unemployment drops the competition for employees increases, thereby increasing wages, which increases business costs, which causes them to raise prices, which increases inflation thereby diminishing the value of the increased wages, etc., possibly setting off an inflationary spiral. This has happened in recent history. The interest rate on my 1985 mortgage was above 13%.

I'm reminded of the joke, "Under a communist system the Detroit Lions would win the Super Bowl every 32 years" (pick your sport and team), but I understand your point.

Well your joke misses the mark imho.

It isn't my joke. It's actually a very old joke dating to well before the fall of the Soviet Union.

And I think I do understand your point. There is a discernible element of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" in your viewpoint.

There is more to life than making money, the $$ economy ignores that.

I don't think it does. I made lifelong friendships while working that are a meaningful part of my life. I still have at least annual get togethers with people I met at work in 1980. I just now confirmed a lunch with friends from the company I retired from five years ago. Our human side doesn't disappear while working.

And the larger and more important part of our life outside of work is only made possible by working, or at least that is true for me and everyone I know. I don't know anyone who was able to raise a family while neither parent worked. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who didn't work, family or not. I'm racking my brain here for a ne'er-do-well who didn't work, but I can't think of one. I know they exist, I just don't happen to know any.

And working pays for retirement, assuming one saves responsibly, and retirement is a huge part of life.

Should every job pay a living wage? When you and I were kids there was such a thing as paperboys. There were tons of low paying jobs filled by teenagers.

And I spent half my earnings at the bakery next to the newspaper building every Saturday (yumm). But if someone spent 40 hours a week at it then yes it should be a living wage ... because they are spending their life to do it. If the employer is buying that time from the employee then they should be fairly compensated, because they can’t do anything else in that time.

Why is the number of hours worked the governing factor instead of the value of the work performed? What about the 16-year old who works part time during the school year and full time in the summer?

Public support of art and culture is important. It was once a higher priority than it is today.

But it has never been considered a business equivalent occupation. Support has generally relied on the kindness of strangers — wealthy patrons, kings, etc.

This is not true for all arts and culture, unless you're excluding TV, movies, plays, pop music performers and groups, recorded music, comedians and entertainers, specialty acts (e.g., Cirque du Soleil, Recycled Percussion), etc.

Do you think pure science should be publicly supported or left to the likes of Monsanto for funding?

I think all science should receive some public support, and it does through grants (usually to academic institutions) from NIH and NSF.

It’s a question of cultural values. Is becoming a money sucking CEO the best we can aspire to?

Is capitalism antithetical to cultural values?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4891 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2020 4:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4912 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2020 4:55 PM Percy has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 4905 of 5057 (871552)
02-05-2020 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4893 by Percy
02-04-2020 6:51 PM


Re: Heritage Foundation Senior Analyst on the deficit and Natoinal Debt
God I loved that limit, but you might be right. Has anyone done the calculation to make sure that's sufficient to fix the problem? Or maybe the limit only has to be raised instead of eliminated.

Why should anyone be exempt privileged?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4893 by Percy, posted 02-04-2020 6:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 02-05-2020 1:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020