|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
``
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? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Why am I not surprised: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump at impeachment trial | CNN Politics
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: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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:CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Ballooned 1,000 Percent Since 1950: Report | HuffPost Impact 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs - John F. Cogan - Google Books (the link opens on the correct page, it's in the last full paragraph). --Percy Edited by Percy, : Explain where information in book is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024