Jeff Daniels tells why America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore
invite response
2012 Jul 6, 7:43am 77,309 views 161 comments
« First « Previous Comments 94 - 133 of 161 Next » Last » Search these comments
The reason cap gains has a preferred tax rate is lawmakers believe it does help GPD growth.
See above. The beliefs of politicians don't trump facts.
And I was referring to the income tax, as well, not just cap gains rate v GDP.
That's why, if you scroll up, there are charts for both income and capital gains taxes.
And in both instances there is a lot more going on behind those numbers that can be captured in just a two-axis graph, so your conclusions based on these graphs are (a) inconsistent with basic economic theory, which indicates when something costs more (e.g., because it's taxed), there will be less demand for it, and (b) oversimplified.
Marginal tax rates are a meaningless number, since our tax code is so complex, that they have little bearing on tax levels. Here's a short article, and a chart showing actual tax receipts as a share of GDP, which tells you the real overall tax burden. http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html
freak80
2012 Jul 11, 9:52am
(a) inconsistent with basic economic theory, which indicates when something costs more (e.g., because it's taxed), there will be less demand for it
If you're talking about buying something (like cigarettes or sugary drinks) you are absolutely correct.
What does that have to do with tax rates?
Dan8267
2012 Jul 11, 10:31am
"Thanks to our piss-poor education system, a LOT of people are actually going to actually believe that vampires were behind slavery and the Civil War" much for the same reasons.
No more revisionist history than the South normally does.
(a) inconsistent with basic economic theory, which indicates when something costs more (e.g., because it's taxed), there will be less demand for it
If you're talking about buying something (like cigarettes or sugary drinks) you are absolutely correct.
What does that have to do with tax rates?
That, too, and perhaps more obviously. But an income tax, as its name implies, makes marginal/overtime/extra work resulting in more income less and less appealing vs. spending time relaxing, on vacation, with family, friends, etc. At the extreme end of things back when the top rate was ~90%, once you hit that bracket, why would you bother working at all? In fact, I can't recall who - Art Linkletter? - but a Hollywood celeb from that era was interviewed and said that stars stopped making movies for the year once they had that bracket - no point in working and giving away 90%+ (not sure what state income tax levels were like back then - if it's anything like CA's 10% today, literally it would be stupid to work unless one enjoyed working, since you'd be working for free after taxes). While the effect is not as extreme in lower / current brackets, it is still a disincentive to hit AGI tax benefit phaseout levels, get into the AMT, and pay ever more tax on additional earnings. Which is why I have friends who don't work available overtime, because too much of it goes to taxes, and others who don't bother shooting for the company bonus or next highest level bonus, because 50-60% of it will be sucked up by the IRS and FTB anyway. In other words, the income tax is a drag on GDP.
The high marginal tax rates were a good part of the reason that executives got paid 30 times the average workers salary in the 50's vs 500 today. Do CEO's really add almost 20 times the value to stockholders over the 1950's? Not.
Today, they have become liable for the errors and fraud of the whole organization.
Do you realize if the guy you work with sitting next to you has committed fraud or financial misrepresentation in your organization, and even if your officers and CEO was located 100s of miles from your building/operations.. your CEO will be fired and held financial/ criminal liable... no matter how ethical the CEO was it wont matter.
example... a sales person in Hong Kong books a fictitious LARGE Mega Million deal for a publicly traded SV tech company, later discovered after the sales we published to the public ... yes the CEO is liable for not having internal controls over the financials.
Yes..Due to SOX the risks have increased and so have the costs of employing a CEO.
a more recent well publized item...regarding Steve Jobs at Apple.
In 2001, Jobs was granted stock options in the amount of 7.5 million shares of Apple with an exercise price of $18.30. It was alleged that the options had been backdated, and that the exercise price should have been $21.10. It was further alleged that Jobs had thereby incurred taxable income of $20,000,000 that he did not report, and that Apple overstated its earnings by that same amount.
As a result, Jobs potentially faced a number of criminal charges and civil penalties. The case was the subject of active criminal and civil government investigations, though an independent internal Apple investigation completed on December 29, 2006, found that Jobs was unaware of these issues and that the options granted to him were returned without being exercised in 2003.
On July 1, 2008, a $7-billion class action suit was filed against several members of the Apple Board of Directors for revenue lost due to the alleged securities fraud.
@ thomas.wong1986 - In fairness, as part of their SOP and benefits package to directors/officers, these companies carry D&O liability insurance and generally indemnify their D&O's to the maximum extent they can.
@ thomas.wong1986 - In fairness, as part of their SOP and benefits package to directors/officers, these companies carry D&O liability insurance and generally indemnify their D&O's to the maximum extent they can.
nope.. it doesnt cover everything nor can CEO escape prosecution and frankly D&O has skyrocketed.
freak80
2012 Jul 11, 11:21am
Perhaps I'm making the mistake even talking about income taxes.
Maybe the real problem is people like Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary?
Perhaps we should just raise capital gains taxes on "ultra-high" net worth individuals?
Maybe the real problem is people like Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary?
Capital gains.. you have to sell ownership to get taxed... we are also including equipment, buildings and other assets. Lower taxes, spurn reinvestment in new purchases be it equipment, building and other assets. As such new purchases require new inventory to be created which require labor and materials. Which creates new jobs which creates taxable income.
Income - those are simple (net) earnings after expenses from individuals and corporations, taxable when earned.
There is a fundamental difference between the two.
Perhaps we have forgotten basic macroeconomics.
To WThFck80, Bob2356 and Patrick:
I knew you wouldn't refute my main arguments against you LibTards. WThFck80 called me 'unreasonable'. Really? How, specifically? AND refuted my contention that FDR was an early Presidential proponent of the class-warfare tactic, by saying Warren Buffett is the architect of class-warfare. Really WThFck80? Maybe you should read some recent books about FDR written over the last 10 years. Factual books.
Bob......really 91% ....... 75%........who cares, that's not my point and what's the difference? Almost no one paid significant income taxes on wages that were significantly over $400k/year back in the '50s.......that's like $2M now which many athletes & entertainers pay.........but they stayed below $400k in the '50s. Business owners/CEOs were paid stock options over $400k wages, to avoid the confiscatory income taxes.
But all those details are not my main point. You all are suckers. Played like a fiddle by Obama/Pelosi/Reid......who didn't do what you wanted in '09, SO THAT you'd still be whining now and ranting against Republicans. You are intellectually bankrupt. Don't see what your hero Democrats have done for your cause.....NOTHING. Because they want you to still vote for their slogans, even though they DON'T/DIDN'T DO IT. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Perhaps I'm making the mistake even talking about income taxes.
Maybe the real problem is people like Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary?
Perhaps we should just raise capital gains taxes on "ultra-high" net worth individuals?
His secretary who is "rich"* according to Obama's standards, since she makes over $200K/year. And Buffett could have Berkshire Hathaway pay him salary, instead his compensation is structured to produce zero to few W-2 wages and all capital gains. Warren could also voluntarily pay more income tax, there's a box for that on his tax return, and yours, and mine.
* Nevermind that income and wealth are two different, albeit somewhat related, concepts. This fact seems to escape Obama.
@ thomas.wong1986 - In fairness, as part of their SOP and benefits package to directors/officers, these companies carry D&O liability insurance and generally indemnify their D&O's to the maximum extent they can.
nope.. it doesnt cover everything nor can CEO escape prosecution and frankly D&O has skyrocketed.
Are you saying companies aren't still paying the increased premiums? Companies generally cannot indemnify against fraud, crimes, etc., but most everything else they can and do.
Are you saying companies aren't still paying the increased premiums? Companies generally cannot indemnify against fraud, crimes, etc., but most everything else they can and do.
Oh course they have to pay! but what we are talking about is the risks for the individual CEO has gone up... They really are on the hook for every little guy down the line.. little guy screws up.. its the CEOs head.
If you understood the risks and interviewing for the CEO spot, your compensation will match that risk.
I would also agree that CEO pay is too high, even in places like SV.
Why ? we stopped promoting from within (like Warren Buffet would do) and start to seek managers from outside of tech to run SV companies or some dreadful idiots. More recent example at HP hiring a German from SAP or under-qualified Yahoo CEO (just an accountant) who inflated his resume. We certainly dont see leaders who have a passion in building an enterprise for the long term.. just a quick ticket to retirement.
You can certainly blame inflated salary is due to regulation and pure stupidity.
If you have a question why Apple CEO is paid so much.. ask Al Gore.. he sits on the Apple board. Heck wasnt he the one who promoted CEOs salary being non-deductible expense for tax when he was VP.
Are you saying companies aren't still paying the increased premiums?
Very expensive for the small guy!
If you have a question why Apple CEO is paid so much.. ask Al Gore.. he sits on the Apple board. Heck wasnt he the one who promoted CEOs salary being non-deductible expense for tax when he was VP.
I know - I voted against him as a shareholder (and voter), the former to no avail. Agree on risks. Agree on some CEOs seem to be overpaid, although disagree govt regulation/tax punishment is the solution. I think shareholders need to pressure companies to see if they can find any talent at $X million instead of $XX or XXX million. Surely these are jobs everyone wants and there must be some willing to do it for less than XX or XXX who are qualified?
freak80
2012 Jul 11, 1:12pm
I knew you wouldn't refute my main arguments against you LibTards
But all those details are not my main point. You all are suckers.
You are intellectually bankrupt.
Ok.
I think shareholders need to pressure companies to see if they can find any talent at $X million instead of $XX or XXX million.
Ditto, i would make it half $XM of that in fixed salary with the other half variable.
To Thomas Wong and JG1: I want to thank you two guys for your comments -- they were VERY interesting, factual and informative in big ways. I know alot about the economy, politics, investing (be careful the next 10 years!)..........but you two know alot more about businesses and taxation. Loved reading that summary of the Apple/Jobs issue.
I think I'm kind of an expert on how the Democrats try to get votes, and the damaging effects on our country that result from their tactics on cities, states and federal economies! But that's not hard to see! If you want to read a GR8 book about the tactics of Dems and economic-illiteracy of Dems, FDR and his 'advisors', read:
"FDR:New Deal or Raw Deal" One of the best books I've ever read, actually frightening what was done, and even more frightening how Democrats thought all that stuff was good, even doing the same now.
Sbourg - hold on, the full frontal assult by the libs will occur any second. But thanks for the book recommendation. I've listed many books but get attacked each and every time. I've REPEATEDLY asked libs for book recommendations and have gotten NOTHING, repeat - nothing.
Hey you pinko libs, what book recommendations ya' got today? Ha-ha-ha.
bdrasin
2012 Jul 12, 2:00am
Hey you pinko libs, what book recommendations ya' got today?
Er, I liked "Moby-Dick"...
OK, see what I mean? Don't liberals read books they aren't ashamed to name?
bdrasin
2012 Jul 12, 5:12am
OK, see what I mean? Don't liberals read books they aren't ashamed to name?
OK, you caught me. The last book I read was "Misquoting Jesus". Don't particularly recommend it unless you are really interested in the history of the New Testament.
Hey, Honest Abe: Thx for the warning about the Libtards......they are certainly out in full force on this site. And they never directly respond to an argument.
Yes, absolutely you should get/read "FDR New Deal or Raw Deal". Brilliantly researched and factually fascinating. He even explains how & why the history books painted glowing accounts of FDR's greatness.......history profs at the Ivy League schools in the '40s, '50s, '60s were stacked with super-libs and they didn't know much about economics. Anyway, FDR was unbelievable and no wonder the Depression lasted 14 years, until he died! Then Truman announced certain changes to the business leaders, etc. :)
CL
2012 Jul 13, 10:23am
OK, see what I mean? Don't liberals read books they aren't ashamed to name?
Ours have big words in them, and less pictures of choo-choos.
OK, see what I mean? Don't liberals read books they aren't ashamed to name?
Ours have big words in them, and less pictures of choo-choos.
Like this?
http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649
JG1: Brilliant ! Books by liberals actually defy comprehension.
Incomprehensible, economic-illiteracy...pretty much describes all the Democrats who've been elected to office in the past......well....80 years since 1932.
In fact, I'd hazard to guess that Al Franken is even MORE clueless than FDR, and that's saying alot.
There are reasonable conservatives out there. You are not one of them.
There are zero 'reasonable conservatives' left in the GOP. They have all been kicked to the curb years ago.
Hey Buster: Define 'reasonable' conservative. Does anyone come close? I'm talking economic issues, fiscal issues, governmental involvement, obviously.
And give us an example of a 'reasonable' liberal on the economic issues .
You won't be able to do it and support it.
But give it a shot. Be specific about economic issues. Good luck.
sbourg, I am going to get your book recommendation, FDR = New Deal or Raw Deal, but not today. My spirits are too high and reading how FDR put the seeds of destruction in place to destroy America is way too depressing to read on such a beautiful day. It would wreck my zen.
BTW, I couldn't help but notice no book recommendations from the radical leftists who populate this site. I've repeatedly asked for their recommendations with virtually the same result that you've gotten...nada.
I'm going to go walk my four rescue weiner dogs, have a good day.
Abe.
There are reasonable conservatives out there. You are not one of them.
There are zero 'reasonable conservatives' left in the GOP. They have all been kicked to the curb years ago.
Funny, some of my obama-loving (OK, just kidding, there are none of those left), some of my intending to vote obama friends are criticizing romney, saying he's just like obama anyway, not that conservative, why do I support him when he's not that conservative, etc. Perhaps because he is a reasonable conservative. You may not love him, you may not vote for him, but I think you'll be OK with his presidency.
Would you ever say "BUSH-LOVING" , i thought not.
This is cloaked racism to say "obama-loving" it's like saying n-lover.
More racists.
Sure, why wouldn't I? And I've certainly heard Clinton, Gore, and Obama supporters use that term. So you are really grasping at straws to find racism where none exists and none is intended. When Obama was elected, I didn't vote for him, but I predicted he would win when my democrat friends were still saying he can't win because he's (half) black. And I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, and he was been awful ever since. I would like to see Condi for VP with Mitt, so how does that add up in your apparently race-obsessed worldview?
Tenpoundbass
2012 Jul 14, 7:31am
Yeah, Lord knows the Man is always trying to keep Obama down.
Chin up Obama, you'll catch a break, poor you.
Thank God he's not Tiger Woods, or I'd catch crap for the "Chin" remark!
obama-loving is code racism.
i don''t care what you predicted.
glad you gave a half-black guy the "benefit of the doubt??" seriously, your a racist ..
You say Obama has been awful? how? , Make sure you use George Bush as the mile stone.
Social Media Guru Since 1999
Only the race-obssessed would know that. And you're really stretching what isn't and is racism. And pulling the usual liberal trick, everything you don't like isn't just wrong or a different opinion, it's evil, racist, misogynist, etc. A tired old game.
To JG1: You're awesome and I understand and agree with your very interesting thoughts before the '08 election.
To HRH: You don't even understand what JG1's saying.........and you don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're', so we're not surprised you don't get it and call people (like JG1) racists.
To HRH again: Republican fiscal conservatives will vote for like-minded, smaller federal govt candidates, and we DON'T care about 'color' or 'race'. That's why SO many TeaParty folks were thrilled ( like me) with Herman Cain, Allen West, etc.
Liberals don't understand that conservatives are truly, POST-RACIAL. And when we see/hear of Liberals (like you) who don't understand and acknowledge that fact, we realize how stupid Liberals are. Period.
Last major point to Liberals including Patrick on this blog:
Obama started Occidental College Sept '79, 4 months after I graduated from Oxy. So naturally I was curious what he stood for in '07 when he started getting serious vs Hillary. And what I discovered from many sources (even his 2 books), was that he detested capitalism (this was his commonality with Bill Ayers by the way) , and didn't understand how capitalism works to provide maximum wealth and opportunity. He never got it......because he thought the opposite, and he loved marxist-ideas (Roger Boesche was his favorite prof at Oxy)......etc.
Unfortunately, most Democrat-voters are just as economically-illiterate in their understanding of our country, and thus did NOT know what a dangerous Idealogue Obama would be.
But it was obvious to fiscal conservatives.
« First « Previous Comments 94 - 133 of 161 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.youtube.com/embed/JM3nvATF-U8