patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

there are plenty of funds that paid a healthy 5% pre-bubble.. had people not created the housing bubble and continued with rational pricing as was the case in the 90s , many would

have had a much higher savings rate with some invested in stocks and bonds.. we can only

wish it was rational thinking by the public... this did not happen. Those of use who bought in the 90s and been plowing it back into investments did well.. We worked at it.

Interesting you should bring this up. Yes, things were better in the 90s. Hmmm.... what happened in the 90s? Oh, yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate went up. And we had prosperity - not just for the elite in the financial sector, but for everyone. Hmmm... What happened after the 90s? Oh yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate was lowered. So did those "job creators" invest in equipment and create more jobs? Nope, the financial sector became immensely wealthy, over-leveraged themselves, and destroyed the economy. And that's where we are today. Trickle-down doesn't work, dude. I know Rush told you it does, but he's wrong.

Call it Crazy says

So, what does the "blue" team run on???

The D's are essentially neoliberal light at the moment, willing to do some social reform but economically are very pro business/Wall St/banks, not all that far in policy from early/mid 90's R's in terms of economic or foreign policy really. Which is why they passed Obamacare which was Gingrich's health care reform alternative to Hillarycare in the 90's.

thomaswong.1986 says

the game isnt rigged

When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:

tts says

The D's are essentially neoliberal light at the moment, willing to do some social reform but economically are very pro business/Wall St/banks, not all that far in policy from early/mid 90's R's in terms of economic or foreign policy really. Which is why they passed Obamacare which was Gingrich's health care reform alternative to Hillarycare in the 90's.

I think that's a very accurate assessment.

tts says

When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:

But they're the job creators.

marcus says

But they're the suck creators.

Fixed.

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

there are plenty of funds that paid a healthy 5% pre-bubble.. had people not created the housing bubble and continued with rational pricing as was the case in the 90s , many would


have had a much higher savings rate with some invested in stocks and bonds.. we can only


wish it was rational thinking by the public... this did not happen. Those of use who bought in the 90s and been plowing it back into investments did well.. We worked at it.

Interesting you should bring this up. Yes, things were better in the 90s. Hmmm.... what happened in the 90s? Oh, yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate went up. And we had prosperity - not just for the elite in the financial sector, but for everyone. Hmmm...

The tax increases in first term did nothing to promote business activity. Perhaps you have forgotten how Capital Gains tax was cut after 1997 by Clinton which provided much needed capital to hire many workers.. "In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%." . It was after the 1997 tax cut did the
economy boom and capital spending skyrocketed.

https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical

"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
- Bill Clinton 1995

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democrat who helped steer Mr. Clinton's proposal through the Senate Finance Committee, was just as harsh, saying that the 1993 budget's deficit reduction had improved the economy and was something to be proud of.

"It just knocked us over when we saw that report this morning," Mr. Moynihan said. "He keeps conceding these things. He doesn't understand that he's conceding the principles." Asked why he thought the President had made the remarks, Mr. Moynihan said: "He's running for re-election, he's raising money in Houston. What he should have said was, 'Is there a man in this room who's not richer than he was two years ago?' "

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html

marcus says

When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:

Robert Reich.. OH Please.... it would be great that auto, steel, and other workers were making more while our competition from Asia was undercutting market prices on goods they were flooding the market with to take market share away from us. How long would that have lasted..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/09/12/sorry-mr-reich-your-economics-grade-is-still-f-reply-to-robert-reich-2/

Sorry, Mr. Reich: Your Economics Grade Is Still F (Reply to Robert Reich)

Third, Official U.S. data from 1964 to present reject Reich’s claim that declining employee compensation and rising corporate profits (measured absolutely or as shares of national income) cause economic downturns. Corporate profits fall (often dramatically) during economic downturns, while compensation of employees better holds its own. The employee compensation share of national income rises immediately preceding and during recessions. Reich makes claims about economic relationships with little or no regard to facts.

Fourth, I conclude that Reich does not understand wage formation in labor markets, although he was Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. Apparently such knowledge is not necessary for such a position. He seems to think that stingy corporations could pay their workers much more. He does not realize they most businesses operate in a competitive environment. If they pay more than the competitive wage, they cannot remain competitive themselves.

bgamall4 says

Wong, the people who need to be taxed are the top .1 percent, who have trillions of dollars offshore. Most companies get around high taxes in the USA and offshore profits are a problem there too.

you know little of overseas operations.. the profits overseas have already been taxed by foreign governments and are already taxed by the IRS. The amount due is the difference between the US Rates Less Foreign tax Credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_tax_credit

Since when do you tax the same dollar twice ? There is no trillions in Profits DUE TO THE IRS.

bgamall4 says

Wong, the guy's chart above doesn't lie. Why don't you give up.

Competition from overseas ... no it doesnt lie..

So I ask you again.. increasing pay will do what to the US industries as the Overseas

competition cuts the market prices of goods they have flooded the international markets. ?

Homeboy says

I know Rush told you it does, but he's wrong.

Ever read the National Review.. its been around for a very very long time..

If you like you can dispute Bill Clinton himself.. of Course even Patrick Moynihan

Higher taxes is just promises the Democrats cannot deliver on ...

thomaswong.1986 says

Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.

D's tend to lose mid-term elections due to poor voter turn out. Also most people haven't got a clue what the capital gains tax rate is, only the rich care about it.

It was not a voter issue back then. Particularly on state level congressional votes which are most always about local politics.

thomaswong.1986 says

Robert Reich.. OH Please....

Posting an opinion piece is not proof. Especially one who is Tea Bagger:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/10/17/the-tea-party-victory/

That idiot thinks Obamacare is a European-style welfare program when it is anything but!

Also all those charts are actual data, not opinions on what happened and when, and only 1 of them is sourced from Reich.

tts says

D's tend to lose mid-term elections due to poor voter turn out. Also most people haven't got a clue what the capital gains tax rate is, only the rich care about it.

It was not a voter issue back then. Particularly on state level congressional votes which are most always about local politics.

They lost because they screwed up and Clinton knew it.

Everyone knows about Capital Gains and everyone uses it.
Certainly the 60% of the homeowners do...and others who have mutual funds.
There is no 1% here as some would like to claim.

tts says

Also all those charts are actual data, not opinions on what happened and when, and only 1 of them is sourced from Reich.

the criticism against Reith is a fair one. many liberals talk of unfair or declining wages yet make

no comments regarding domestic and foreign competition.

you want charts ? ... here is one ...

All I hear is a bunch of socialist nonsense in this thread.

thomaswong.1986 says

the criticism against Reith is a fair one. many liberals talk of unfair or
declining wages yet make

no comments regarding domestic and foreign competition.

Thomas--

Come on--you're smarter than this. There's another thread on here talking about how the difference between the top executive's pay and the median worker is larger than ever. And corporate profits are at record levels. Obviously foreign competition is not holding down profits or keeping executive pay down.

That explanation is BS.

tatupu70 says

Come on--you're smarter than this. There's another thread on here talking about how the difference between the top executive's pay and the median worker is larger than ever. And corporate profits are at record levels. Obviously foreign competition is not holding down profits or keeping executive pay down.

top executives are paid ALOT..yes this is true.. were the orginal founders ... no they made far far less but kept a large share in equity. Somewhere there is an offset when outsiders are hired.

you want more pay for workers.. talk to HR people about that..

the answer over foreign competition is even more obvious answer ...

how many times have you heard of a Japanese Car Maker going into Bankruptcy

due to lower sales and higher expenses ?

thomaswong.1986 says

you want more pay for workers.. talk to HR people about that..

lol. How would that conversation go. "I think the CEO making $20MM in pay/bonus/options is too much especially when you consider that he's paying the rank and file workers slightly over minimum wage."

I'm sure the HR manager would call the chairman up and recommend that the CEO salary be reduced immediately.

thomaswong.1986 says

how many times have you heard of a Japanese Car Maker going into Bankruptcy

due to lower sales and higher expenses ?

How much do Japanese car maker's CEOs make?

tatupu70 says

How much do Japanese car maker's CEOs make?

i have no idea how much they make its not an issue..

the issue is how do we selling more cars than the Japanese competition and making Toyota/Nissan less profitable. That is what the focus should be.. everything is a distraction and smoke screen from the real issue.

You make US products dominate the world markets then of course you have pricing power and room to grow costs.

thomaswong.1986 says

the issue is how do we selling more cars than the Japanese competition and
making Toyota/Nissan less profitable. That is what the focus should be..
everything is a distraction and smoke screen from the real issue.

Actually, that's not the issue at all. You initially stated that US companies can't increase pay to the rank and file because foreign competition was too fierce. Do you agree that with record profitability and CEO pay, there actually is room?

thomaswong.1986 says

The tax increases in first term did nothing to promote business activity. Perhaps you have forgotten how Capital Gains tax was cut after 1997 by Clinton which provided much needed capital to hire many workers.. "In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%." . It was after the 1997 tax cut did the

economy boom and capital spending skyrocketed.

Bullshit.

tatupu70 says

Actually, that's not the issue at all. You initially stated that US companies can't increase pay to the rank and file because foreign competition was too fierce. Do you agree that with record profitability and CEO pay, there actually is room?

My opinion is unimportant... You should find several Liberal Leaning CEOs from a publicly traded company that will agree with you and will implement lower salaries for those at the top. Perhaps they will also implement mandatory salary/wage cuts across the board when things dont reach quota.. or how about firing all if revenues/profits are not met. When things go bad only a few usually at the top get paddled.

Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than didnt change.

Today, you want to impose greater government control over the private sector pay... all for the sake of fairness. Good luck with that ?

bgamall4 says

That is a lie. Did you know that back in the 90's, 50 percent of the people lived paycheck to paycheck and now it is up to 76 percent? How high can it go before the society disintegrates, Wong?

and where did the house bubble start..Home prices only go up and up.. buy now or be priced forever.

Homeboy says

Bullshit.

so there was no cut in capital gains in 1997 ?

how do you explain the rush with over $150 Billion in Venture Capital flooding the start ups ?

https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical

thomaswong.1986 says

Today, you want to impose greater government control over the private sector
pay... all for the sake of fairness. Good luck with that ?

Nope--I'd like to see boards of directors actually become independent and their members grow a pair so they can do their job and represent the shareholders rather than the company's management.

thomaswong.1986 says

Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs
and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than
didnt change.

Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.

tatupu70 says

Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.

why is your number better than another.. where do you peg it "belongs"? Not going to happen...

"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

- Bill Clinton 1995

tatupu70 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs

and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than

didnt change.

Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.

The right number for that will always be in debate. However there is a difference between stock options (while you work at the company) and stocks bought on the open market. The stock options have no risk associated with them as you don't have to exercise them, so these gains behave more like regular income as compared to gains from regular stock purchases. Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.

mell says

Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.

LOL! Why do you hate home ownership and the American dream ?

.
.
(Psst... I do agree)

thomaswong.1986 says

mell says

Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.

LOL! Why do you hate home ownership and the American dream ?

.

.

(Psst... I do agree)

Ever since I realized the best times were those hacking years back then at Sun Microsystems when we slept in the labs, medical rooms or in our cars and weren't missing much ;)

thomaswong.1986 says

so there was no cut in capital gains in 1997 ?

Did I say that?

how do you explain the rush with over $150 Billion in Venture Capital flooding the start ups ?

Um, we were talking about JOBS. Unemployment went UP starting in 2000. Where was the job-creating effect of that cut in capital gains rate? I'm not denying that a flurry of stock market investing follows cuts in the capital gains rate; in fact I specifically mentioned that it helps the investor class. But we were talking about whether it helps the WORKING class, and no, it does not.

You seem to be having an imaginary argument with someone other than me. Did I say tax increases promote business activity? No, I simply said cutting the capital gains rate does NOT promote business activity. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The reason to tax capital gains as ordinary income would be to balance the budget by ending preferential tax treatment for the investor class. The problem could be solved without people going hungry or dying from lack of medical care.

What happened when Clinton slightly cut the capital gains rate? The long trend of declining unemployment reversed, and people started losing jobs again for the first time in 8 years. Unemployment declined throughout Clinton's first term yet you inexplicably claim that there were no economic effects during the Clinton era until 1997. Cherry pick data much?

What happened when Bush further cut the capital gains rate? Overleveraging in the financial sector, housing bubble, Wall Street coup, and the destruction of the US economy, which has resulted in one of the worst wealth disparity situations in the world.

Trickle. Down. Doesn't. Work.

mell says

The right number for that will always be in debate. However there is a difference between stock options (while you work at the company) and stocks bought on the open market. The stock options have no risk associated with them as you don't have to exercise them, so these gains behave more like regular income as compared to gains from regular stock purchases. Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.

Or we could just tax capital gains as ordinary income. Period.

Homeboy says

Or we could just tax capital gains as ordinary income. Period.

COMMUNIST!!!

Homeboy says

You seem to be having an imaginary argument with someone other than me.

Mell does that a lot. It takes some getting used to.

Homeboy says

Or we could just tax capital gains as ordinary income. Period.

Could be a possibility if income taxes come down. But taking a risk or doing a job where you could lose all your money instead of making money is very different form a guaranteed paycheck. Furthermore stock losses would need to be able to be completely written off at once, not asymmetrical like it is now, i.e you get taxed instantly for the full amount of the gain, but you can only write off a tiny amount of losses per year. In any case I am opposed to any raises as long as there are loopholes and deductions for other types of gains and/or debt. Btw. if the market would have been allowed to correct itself in 2008 there would not be that much calls for a capital gains debate as the money possibly collected from those gains would not matter much amidst a sea of losses.

thomaswong.1986 says

many liberals talk of unfair or declining wages yet make no comments regarding domestic and foreign competition.

The Left view on this subject is that capital has too much freedom and power in and between nations and too often gets to set or even dictate its own rules to labor. Global wage arbitrage was not an issue for instance until the 70's/80's when corporations were allowed to move jobs and factories en mass to foreign nations. This was essentially a trade of long term prosperity for short term cheap goods and it has done us no good.

I have no clue what you think your chart shows but whatever you're thinking is probably incorrect. It clearly shows employment being higher until the recession hit. That jobs have not recovered since then is due to businesses taking advantage of Labor's lack of bargaining power by having less people do more. This is why productivity keeps going up even though wages have stagnated or fallen.

thomaswong.1986 says

you want more pay for workers.. talk to HR people about that..

HR takes their marching orders from the VIP's, not the other way around.

The only thing that will break the trend of people being paid less to more is for Labor to organize and demand their fair share of the pie.

The alternative is to watch America develop a massive and permanent underclass of people who are essentially viewed as disposable by the monied interests. Or in other words a return to a late 1800's/early 1900's style economy and society.

IMO were probably already about half way there.

thomaswong.1986 says

how many times have you heard of a Japanese Car Maker going into Bankruptcy

You know the Japanese mega corps get tons of assistance from the Japanese govt. right? The pretty much run the show over there, not unlike the Korean Chaebol's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu

They don't go to bankruptcy because they have what amounts to Too Big To Fail status, not because they're ran so well.

thomaswong.1986 says

They lost because they screwed up and Clinton knew it.

Screwed up where and on what? Clinton hadn't done a huge amount by that point, the biggest thing then was Hillarycare, which had tons of bad press by R's but never even got implemented.

thomaswong.1986 says

Everyone knows about Capital Gains and everyone uses it.

Most people don't even know how tax brackets work but you're going to claim, with no proof again, that everyone knows about capital gains taxes? Also only about half of Americans own some sort of stock, so no everyone doesn't use it.
thomaswong.1986 says

There is no 1% here as some would like to claim.

I love it when people post stuff like this. Totally discredits anything else they say for-ever.

tts says

I love it when people post stuff like this. Totally discredits anything else they say for-ever.

Agree. I try to tune-out the Foxbots and Rushbots. It's the same B.S. over and over.