American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;439157]You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule[/URL].

It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.[/QUOTE]HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS? I believe he's a self serving hypocrite because of his positions on the death tax and taxes on dividends. The "Buffett Rule" may or may not have existed when I wrote that, I don't remember. The death tax, which he supports, enabled him to buy off family businesses on the cheap, because they had to sell in order to pay the tax.

His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital. If there's up to a 43.4% federal income tax on dividends on top of a federal corporate income tax up to 35%, corporations won't pay dividends. They'll keep the money in the corporation. If it's a corporation that's profitable and has need of retained earnings to grow the business, it doesn't matter. However, if it's a company that's not profitable or marginally profitable, it won't create value with the money and should instead pay earnings out in dividends. If the state + federal tax rate on dividends is, say, 50%, then corporate management has the perfect excuse to keep money instead of distributing to shareholders, who could invest in more profitable, higher growth businesses. The end result is that a high tax on dividends on top of a high tax on corporate income reduces economic growth. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY RECOGNIZES, and their tax systems are designed accordingly. You and Warren are alone on this one. The reason you believe what you believe is because you view stock ownership as a way by which the wealthy receive "free money" (your words), instead of an actual ownership position in a business. The reason Buffett believes what he believes is because he's a self serving hypocrite. Without writing a dissertation, higher taxes on dividends are a competitive advantage for Berkshire Hathaway, because unlike its competitors that aren't C corporations, Berkshire gets an 85% reduction in its dividend tax rate. And it is able to efficiently allocate capital within its business, better than most of its shareholders could invest the dividends, if Berkshire were to pay a dividend (and it won't).

I have no problem removing Berkshire Hathaway from the discussion of the Buffett Rule though. You just dwell on it either to confuse other people or confuse yourself. Somebody who's worth $60 billion is not going to give a rat's ass from a personal perspective if his tax is increased $6 million per year. The guy's got 10 years left to live if he's lucky, and $60 million over that period would be 1/1000th of his net worth.

I do respect him for what he plans to do with his estate, piggybacking the Gates Foundation. I do believe he bears more than his fair share of the tax burden indirectly through his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway. That doesn't change that he's a self serving hypocrite. That's not flip flopping, unless you're playing some stupid political spin game.

Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439177]Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.[/QUOTE]

Try this one.

[URL]http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/cliven-bundys-pro-black-pro-mexican-anti-government-statements-completely-discredits-new-york-times/[/URL]

Don B.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439177]Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.[/QUOTE]I don't understand the issue with the turtle, but it sounds like the guy is leasing land from the federal government on the cheap, and then not paying the bill. When leases like his come up for renewal, the BLM should either start leasing land at market rates or sell it to the highest bidders. Trying to make a crony capitalist a poster boy for Libertarianism rings hollow. While I hate to admit it, it sounds like Rand Paul was on the wrong side of this issue.

I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.

Obama should stay out of the matter.

Tres3.

Racism is everywhere in every color. But the reality is that people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists. Somehow, somewhere, they feel they were endow to exploit and dominate.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439185]people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists.[/QUOTE]They do not think they are racists because they are incapable of rational thought. However, no one has to sell something to a racist if they do not want to. As the old radio ad says, "money talks, nobody walks". As for Cliven Bundy, he is guilty of much more serious offenses than racism.

Tres3.

"As for Barkley's thoughts on Sterling, he said during halftime of the Pacers-Hawks game that this is the first big test for NBA commissioner Adam Silver.

"You can't have this guy making statements like that. He has to suspend him and fine him immediately...We can not have an NBA owner discriminating against a league that's...we're a black league," Barkley said.".

I always thought it was a league of the 450 best basketball players.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439183]I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.

Obama should stay out of the matter.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Agreed with all your comments.

The media also seems to be giving the woman a free pass, taping and leaking a private conversation (it appears). WTF?? From a quick check on Google, it looks like she is a classic gold digger. She already got a lot from him, maybe she wanted more. I wouldn't be surprised if she planned the whole thing, to push him to make some of the statements he did. When this guy comes forward with his public statement, I'll be looking to see whether she tried to extort him with the tape.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439158]His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital.[/QUOTE]I'm sure you know far more about Buffett than I do. You said some negative things about him, then some positive, so I couldn't figure out where you stood. Now I understand, you have both views of him.

I must admit, you do have me thinking with this phrase "inefficient allocation of capital". As you know, I've long viewed dividends paid by large corporations as essentially "free money" to wealthy investors and funds that park their cash in the stock. Wall Street parasites, leeching off the American worker. I've had a negative view of activists like Icahn who try to force companies to pay out their cash. What's good for these large shareholders is not always good for the company's workers. But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that [I]some[/I] of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).

So Tiny, it's not often you guys prompt me to re-evaluate my thinking, but I may have to on this one. It might be a choice of the "lesser of two evils". Regardless, the question of what corporations should do with their cash is a separate discussion from the Buffett Rule, which is a simple and common-sense proposal to set a minimum (30%) tax rate for high earners, and not allow the Buffetts and Romneys of the world to get away with lower effective tax rates than middle class workers.

[QUOTE=Esten;439190] But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that [I]some[/I] of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).[/QUOTE]Most dividend, capital gains, and ordinary corporate income is reinvested and will "trickle down" (not the words I would use) to the main street economy. If instead you heavily tax these sources of income, you reduce savings and fixed capital formation. In the long run this means the economy will grow slower and prosperity will be reduced for all. It's the same whether it's an economy, a government, a business or a family. If you don't invest and instead just consume, in the long run you're screwed. Again, if you look at tax systems in almost all first world countries, they tax dividends, capital gains and corporate income at lower rates than the maximum rate on ordinary personal income. These are reasons why.

Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.

Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.

For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439194]Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.

Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.

For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.[/QUOTE]I believe there is still hope for him Doppelganger. I hope he comes out of the desert and achieves true enlightenment on economic issues. And if not I say we duct tape him to a chair and make him watch Stossel reruns for 20 hours straight.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\[/URL]

[URL]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/[/URL]

We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.

And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?

[QUOTE=RevBS;439198][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\[/URL]

[URL]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/[/URL]

We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.

And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?[/QUOTE]RevBS, I read an interview with Jagdish Bhagwatti, the famous economist. He believes technology is the big factor, and globalization is actually positive in that it makes prices of goods more affordable for the poor and middle class.

My question, as you have some sympathy, like I do, for the poor Mexican or El Salvadoran who's trying to feed his family by working in the USA -- how do you square the prosperity that globalization has brought to the poor in places like China, Thailand, etc. with your concern for flight of manufacturing jobs from the USA?

Your sources are biased. Income distribution after income taxes and transfer payments is more equal. I believe the Democrat party promotes inequality through pandering to teachers unions (and depriving children of good educations) and promoting joblessness.