patrick.net

JG1 says

Those sound like things that benefit renters, as well, and the burden of paying for them should be spread around more equally, and less on the homeowner.

You're kidding, right? You don't think renters pay property taxes? It's part of the rent, obviously. Where do you think the landlord gets the money to pay the property taxes?

Yeah, those renter deadbeats are getting a free ride. Time to soak 'em, those low-lifes!

Why do I put up with far-right trolling?

JG1 says

Do you honestly believe that taxing something produces more of it?

They're not taxing GDP growth. They're taxing unearned income gained from the labor of others.

If you don't udnerstand why capital gains taxes have litte effect on GDP growth, that's your "personal incredulity" and nothing more. Facts trump theories.

The reason cap gains has a preferred tax rate is lawmakers believe it does help GPD growth. And I was referring to the income tax, as well, not just cap gains rate v GDP.

JG1 says

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.

JG1 says

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.

wthrfrk80 says

JG1 says

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.

OH i think you will find even the Dems believe in tax cuts to spur investment dollars in their own states... She what Schumer says below!

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/02/18/20110218chandler-arizona-announces-new-Intel-facility.html#ixzz20GnAS4qO

Intel did not rely on new incentives included in a job bill signed this week by Gov. Jan Brewer when deciding to expand in Arizona, executives said. They cited existing tax benefits, such as a research-and-development credit, foreign-trade zone and a "sales factor" change originally passed in 2005 that is now expanding.

The state Legislature in 2005 passed legislation that helped companies such as Intel that have expensive facilities and high wages but sell little within the state.

A "sales factor" change allowed companies to calculate corporate-income taxes based solely on in-state sales if they made an investment of $1 billion or more in a new project.

"To be honest, when we changed the sales-tax factor . . . that's when Intel was making the decision to either divest from Arizona or stay in Arizona," said Barry Broome, president/CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council.

AMD to build chip fab in Albany area

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/06/19/daily53.html

Bruno said one of the incentives will be to have the chip fab plant built in an Empire Zone, a designation he said could ultimately be worth as much as $400 million to $500 million in tax and other incentives to AMD.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the speakers at the event, said the chip plant was good news for the region.

"This is tremendous news for Tech Valley," he said. "Landing AMD holds the potential for transforming the regional economy, and bringing us into the 21st century. It is a clarion call that upstate New York is open for business. I applaud the state leaders for getting this done, especially (Senate Majority Leader) Joe Bruno (R-Brunswick), who has been working on bringing a chip-fab to the Capital Region for a decade."

To Patrick, WThrFrk80 & all other Obama-voters:

Here's what I wrote at 4:28 pst, 7:28 est this morning and you two semi-socialists have ignored it -- not attempted any refutation. I didn't expect a cogent, coherent, logical rebuttal -- at least you didn't embarrass yourself with a lame rebuttal. But ignoring these truths shows me something. Semi-socialist Obama-voters are not really interested in economic, historical, non-rebuttable truths. Your silence is loud and clear........

Eisenhower did not pass/sign the tax rate increases......FDR was the architect of class-warfare and federal govt power-grabs. For you to imply that high marginal income tax rates in the 1950s were a factor causing the economy to perform well in the '50s......is hypothetical, unsupported conjecture. The boom in the '50s was due to many factors (most do NOT apply NOW). And by the way, the 75% marginal tax rates for income were applied at income of over $2million in current dollars. Thus, essentially no one bothered to get crushed like that, and tax avoidance schemes were the norm at those high levels.
I did NOT set you and Patrick up with strawman arguments.
I am amused by you Obama-Dembots wanting to use and change the tax code for more 'fairness' against higher-paids... amused in a certain way that amazes me because you Progressive Libtards are suckers for Obama/Pelosi/Reid playing you like a fiddle. They could have passed any of their class-warfare agenda beginning July 2009 when the 60th Senate seat was taken by Al Franken. They could have passed any of their 'wish list' of higher tax rates. And you don't even care that they didn't, OR even more amazing, you don't wonder why they didn't. I'll tell you why they didn't....2 reasons: 1) They were not confident it would help the economy, and 2) They easily concluded that they may as well 'save' the issue for Nov 2012 election to get the votes of the masses of economic illiterates. So now they're screaming what's 'fair', why rates should be higher.....all that posturing/lying now -- when they could have put their 'fair' rates in place in late 2009 WITH EASE. They didn't for 2 reasons and YOU don't notice that!! You're still clamoring and falling for their higher rates campaign issue, and you'll vote for Obama/Pelosis/Reids/Progressives again !!!! Just as they wanted!! You don't really get it Patrick and WThFrck80 -- they suckered you!!!! The joke's on you and the rest of Obamabots dumb enough to fall for it!!! Period. That's my argument. Refute it if you can. My guess is you cannot with any logic.

sbourg says

FDR was the architect of class-warfare

Actually it was Warren Buffett.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett.

Sbourg,

That whole post of yours is just typical far-right trolling.

There are reasonable conservatives out there. You are not one of them.

I can get the same far-right talking points from AM radio.

Ruki says

1) Jeff Daniels is acting.

2) Jeff Daniels is acting in a fictional drama.

Obey The Tripods

3) Duh.

sbourg says

And by the way, the 75% marginal tax rates for income were applied at income of over $2million in current dollars. Thus, essentially no one bothered to get crushed like that, and tax avoidance schemes were the norm at those high levels.

Try to get you numbers right, in the Eisenhower years the top tax rate was 91% which would be about 1.5 million in today's dollars. What does no one bothered to get crushed by that mean anyway? Any documentation that tax avoidance schemes were the norm?

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.

bob2356 says

Do CEO's really add almost 20 times the value to stockholders over the 1950's? Not.

Good point. Maybe CEO's should be paid purely for performance. Like the rest of us.

wthrfrk80 says

bob2356 says

Do CEO's really add almost 20 times the value to stockholders over the 1950's? Not.

Good point. Maybe CEO's should be paid purely for performance. Like the rest of us.

Like the DMV and Post Office workers, paid purely for performance? It was Obama's "key economic decision maker" (Wikipedia) and director of the White House Economic Council Larry Summers, who, per the book Confidence Men, stated that the greater separation of wealth between the poorest and richest was in fact, on average, fairness in action. In other words, less wealth at the top indicated there was manipulation of the free market to limit or redistribute that wealth, so in his view, yes, the CEOs are finally getting what they are worth, and they're allegedly worth a lot more than the fungible rank and file.

wthrfrk80 says

JG1 says

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.

JG1 says

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

@wthrfrk80

You're on a roll!

JG1 says

(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?

Ruki says

"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.

wthrfrk80 says

JG1 says

(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.

bob2356 says

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.

JG1 says

@ 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.

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?

wthrfrk80 says

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.

wthrfrk80 says

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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

* Nevermind that income and wealth are two different, albeit somewhat related, concepts. This fact seems to escape Obama.

thomas.wong1986 says

JG1 says

@ 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.

JG1 says

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.

JG1 says

Are you saying companies aren't still paying the increased premiums?

Very expensive for the small guy!

thomas.wong1986 says

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?

sbourg says

I knew you wouldn't refute my main arguments against you LibTards

sbourg says

But all those details are not my main point. You all are suckers.

sbourg says

You are intellectually bankrupt.

Ok.

JG1 says

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.

http://ftmdaily.com/2012-elections/new-executive-order-gives-president-power-to-control-the-media-during-a-crisis/

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.

Honest Abe says

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?

Honest Abe says

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. :)

Honest Abe says

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.

CL says

Honest Abe says

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