HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jul 18, 2005, 11:59 AM
AMA CD# 5957
Robb's Avatar
Janesville, WI
Joined Jul 2004
280 Posts
Again I say, so what? Who is responsible for your financial well being, you or the government?

There are plenty of legisaltors on both sides of the aisle whose interests are less than purient, and almost always self-serving to some degree. Is it the fault of those evil corporations, who are in business to make money after all, or the legislators who try to redistribute thier wealth?
There's an old saw that says "Only the rich can actually afford to be Socialists, the rest of us have to earn our money..."
Robb is offline Find More Posts by Robb
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 12:00 PM
Useful Idiot
Asturias, Spain
Joined Mar 2001
3,522 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieX
It's absolutely amazing to see how many US companies have off-shored some holding company entity or turned their most profitable divisions into dummy foreign subsidiaries. Most of the big names we all support have made it a priority to diminish their contribution to the country as much as possible.

Hey, it's only good business.
It could be argued that companies have a statutory liability to maximise profits to shareholders and any company not taking active steps to limit its fiscal liabilities would not receive a clean report from the auditors.
martin richards is online now Find More Posts by martin richards
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 12:13 PM
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
1,741 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
Lightnin, the arguments in your post don't make sense in terms of justifying record deficits/tax cuts for the rich, and the links don't seem to prove anything either. Don't rely on links to do your arguing for you.

IMO record deficits are not good, and I'm in good company in thinking that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in567809.shtml

"We" have covered this subject many times before as well, "we" being Greenspan et al.
Yes and look at the source, look at his job, that's like asking a dog if he wants to be neutered.

If can't defend your position against fundamental financial understanding avoid the question, good job.
Lightnin is offline Find More Posts by Lightnin
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 12:36 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
Again I say, so what? Who is responsible for your financial well being, you or the government?

There are plenty of legisaltors on both sides of the aisle whose interests are less than purient, and almost always self-serving to some degree. Is it the fault of those evil corporations, who are in business to make money after all, or the legislators who try to redistribute thier wealth?
There's an old saw that says "Only the rich can actually afford to be Socialists, the rest of us have to earn our money..."


I called it good business, didn't I? Anyone with a head on theor shoulders will attempt to decrease their taxes.

I can find something (big companies and billionaires not paying for the services and laws that they thrive with) objectionable from one point of view (a taxpayer who does pay), but find it par for the course and appropriate from another (an investor).

Mostly, I just like the irony of it all. Those that arguably most benefit from the laws, infrastructure, services and framework that gov't provide, are the same groups that have the wherewithal to most effectively skirt their obligation to it.

As far as redistribution, Global Capitalism is the greatest force of redistribution the World has ever known...ever. No tax plan or charity can even compete, not even close. If you have such a problem with redistribution, look into it.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates didn't get billions on top of billions without help from their friends-all the employees, partners and suppliers. Bill and Warren just happen to be the guy that primarily collects on the value of all that labor. Now that's redistribution!

You're going to have to find another boogeyman word.
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 12:37 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin richards
It could be argued that companies have a statutory liability to maximise profits to shareholders and any company not taking active steps to limit its fiscal liabilities would not receive a clean report from the auditors.
I called it good business, but when does good business become bad gov't?
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 12:58 PM
AMA CD# 5957
Robb's Avatar
Janesville, WI
Joined Jul 2004
280 Posts
What makes you think that because your political opinion differs from mine that I don't "look into it"? I think your slant gives you a different view on what 'redistribution' means than what I think it means, and that has nothing to do with your condescending attitude about what you believe to be 'boogeyman' words. The people that get paychecks from Buffet, Gates, et. al, get paid because they provide a service to their employers. That's not what I would call redistribution of wealth, that's called earning a living.

You still didn't answer the question, who is responsible for your financial well being?
Robb is offline Find More Posts by Robb
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 01:11 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
What makes you think that because your political opinion differs from mine that I don't "look into it"? I think your slant gives you a different view on what 'redistribution' means than what I think it means, and that has nothing to do with your condescending attitude about what you believe to be 'boogeyman' words. The people that get paychecks from Buffet, Gates, et. al, get paid because they provide a service to their employers. That's not what I would call redistribution of wealth, that's called earning a living.

You still didn't answer the question, who is responsible for your financial well being?
If you thought I was being condescending, I apologize. I was not. I was using the word in it's common definition. If you want to limit the definition and scope of the words we use, please let me know beforehand. Just because redistribution is used in terms of taxation and gov't charity, doesn't mean it's not valid in other mechanisms.

No matter what you feel like calling it, Capitalism redistributes the value of labor to the owner of the means of production, concentrating wealth. It takes value from one group and gives it to another group. Viola, redistribution.

That the one group accepts this because they make a wage (earning a living)doesn't change the facts. Capitalism redistributes much more wealth than taxation. It's a fact.

Primarily, we are all responsible for our own well-being. Collectively, we are responsible for those services and entities which we determine to be in the common good to build, administrate and maintain collectively. Roads, Schools, Bridges, gov't buildings, F-16s, some communication networks, etc.

Our responsibilities to ourselves (or our shareholders and employees) are always tempered by our responsibilities to the Nation as a whole. I think our responsibilities to our Nation are important and find it unfortunate that our current business climate does not, to the degree thay are willing to do financial and legal yoga to avoid these responsibilities.

The effect it has had is that the financial burden of taxation has fallen to middle class individuals and families.
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Last edited by NewbieX; Jul 18, 2005 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:06 PM
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
1,741 Posts
I disagree, Capitalism is value creation, and without the incentive to create i.e. making and keeping the money you make, those that would create value will choose not to do so. Who are you going to collect taxes from then? The value creators that aren't creating or the workers that aren't working for the value creators? hmmmmm.
Lightnin is offline Find More Posts by Lightnin
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:16 PM
AMA CD# 5957
Robb's Avatar
Janesville, WI
Joined Jul 2004
280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieX
If you thought I was being condescending, I apologize. I was not. I was using the word in it's common definition. If you want to limit the definition and scope of the words we use, please let me know beforehand. Just because redistribution is used in terms of taxation and gov't charity, doesn't mean it's not valid in other mechanisms.

No matter what you feel like calling it, Capitalism redistributes the value of labor to the owner of the means of production, concentrating wealth. It takes value from one group and gives it to another group. Viola, redistribution.

That the one group accepts this because they make a wage (earning a living)doesn't change the facts. Capitalism redistributes much more wealth than taxation. It's a fact.

Primarily, we are all responsible for our own well-being. Collectively, we are responsible for those services and entities which we determine to be in the common good to build, administrate and maintain collectively. Roads, Schools, Bridges, gov't buildings, F-16s, some communication networks, etc.

Our responsibilities to ourselves (or our shareholders and employees) are always tempered by our responsibilities to the Nation as a whole. I think our responsibilities to our Nation are important and find it unfortunate that our current business climate does not, to the degree thay are willing to do financial and legal yoga to avoid these responsibilities.



I love left handed apologies. Accepted, Senator Durbin.

However, use of broad generalizations does nothing to support your argument. You know full well what 'wealth redistribution" means in context, yet continue to try to explain as if speaking to a child; this smacks of intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps unchecked elitist ego.

Quote:
The effect it has had is that the financial burden of taxation has fallen to middle class individuals and families.
Show me numbers, not emotion or opinion, or this line of thinking has no validity.
Robb is offline Find More Posts by Robb
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:22 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin
I disagree, Capitalism is value creation, and without the incentive to create i.e. making and keeping the money you make, those that would create value will choose not to do so. Who are you going to collect taxes from then? The value creators that aren't creating or the workers that aren't working for the value creators? hmmmmm.
I didn't make a value judgement, I just talked about the mechanism. Of course we need all kinds of people to make it work.
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:37 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin
Yes and look at the source, look at his job, that's like asking a dog if he wants to be neutered.
Greenspan is getting ready to retire and has the independence that comes with that. He has always been a respected and admired Chairman. He reflects mainstream thinking on deficits (bad) all time record deficits (really bad) and tax cuts in the face of all-time record deficits (really really bad). If the best you can do is attack his bias, that shows me you a short of affirmative arguments for your position of "deficits and tax cuts are A-OK".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin
If can't defend your position against fundamental financial understanding avoid the question, good job.
I am a CPA and financial advisor to some very large corporations. I think my "fundamental financial understanding" is just fine. Certainly fine enough to recognize financial smoke when it is blown up my pants leg. What you grasp however I can't fathom from your unintelligible logic and links.

One poster said "tax cuts are great, deficits are no problem". This position is outside the mainstream (Greenspan et al), the links didn't support the argument, and I said so. Now you post a bunch of unrelated junk and claim it "proof". If you're going to allege bizarre economic theory as true, the onus is on you to offer some coherent rationale. Not divert attention by demanding I "support my position" or posting irrelevant links and wierd logic.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:43 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
I love left handed apologies. Accepted, Senator Durbin.

However, use of broad generalizations does nothing to support your argument. You know full well what 'wealth redistribution" means in context, yet continue to try to explain as if speaking to a child; this smacks of intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps unchecked elitist ego.


Show me numbers, not emotion or opinion, or this line of thinking has no validity.
If you don't want to accept an apology/explanation, that's fine. I am sorry if I caused offense. That is not my intention.

I'm just trying to create some context as to why some level of "wealth reidistribution" is necessary. Without it, in very short order, it would be the Robber Baron period all over again with all the wealth concentrated in few hands. This isn't good for anyone and it's stultifying to an economy.

You want numbers eh, how's the Congressional Budget Office strike you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug12.html
----

I don't know much about Faireconomy.org, but this little tidbit is interesting in itself.

Since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals has risen 17%.

http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTM..._Tax_Cuts.html
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 02:54 PM
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
1,741 Posts
Greg,
Well, your mainstream and the "real" mainstream obviously have never met.

BTW read your own article.

"Greenspan expressed hope that the economy will pick up momentum in the second half of this year as low interest rates and President Bush's latest round of tax cuts take hold, telling the House Financial Services Committee, "We could very well be embarking on a period of extended growth.""

Just where does he say tax cuts are bad?
That CPA and 70 cents will buy you the same cup of coffee at the student union of the college where I am getting my MBA.
Just because Greenspan is getting ready to retire does not mean exercising his independence is a good thing.
In other words, drink the Kool-Aid if you want, I'll do my own research and make and intelligent decision.
And please, if you’re going to personally attack me don't confuse Finance principles with economic theory.
Lightnin is offline Find More Posts by Lightnin
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 03:25 PM
AMA CD# 5957
Robb's Avatar
Janesville, WI
Joined Jul 2004
280 Posts
Both sources you cite are well over a year old, and I think can be somewhat fairly attributed to election year gerrymandering. In the long run, however, the trouble with the '04 CBO report is that the analysis is static, a zero-sum game that played into Kerry's hands. It does not score the dynamic impact of the Bush tax cuts in not only promoting the economic recovery but also accelerating the ascension of Americans upward through the tax brackets. The study does not suggest that taxpayers in the top 20 percent are not the same today as they were in 2000. More recent data has shown that Federal revenues are up far more than expected, and as was reported last week by most major news organizations the budget deficit has been lowered correspondingly. That is a direct result of tax cuts given to all American income earners, not in spite of them, as the CBO report suggests.
Robb is offline Find More Posts by Robb
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 03:55 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Colorado
Joined Feb 2001
1,616 Posts
My main point was that over the last 40-50 years corporate contribution to the Federal Treasury is declining (as a function of total revenues) and that actual tax rates for both the very wealthy and the poor are less.

This is shifting the tax burden to middle class individuals and families.

It's not information which has changed much in the last year, or even five years. It's a trend. Though the Bush tax cuts did continue the trend.

I think it's good for the gov't to have sane policies and not to hurt the economy through overtaxation (greater GDP=greater revenues), but I don't think it's good to overload the burden on the middle class.

Having a viable middle class is vital to democracy and a strong economy and so much we hold dear.

It's clear to me now that many here just want to squew my argument, discount what I have to say, discount any facts I may bring up and generally create enmity and disregard for other opinions. That is why this thread was started in the first place.

I'll call it a day, I think. I do have some work to do, ya know, earning a living.
NewbieX is offline Find More Posts by NewbieX
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools