[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, Stan[/QUOTE]That eye kind of follows you around the room.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, Stan[/QUOTE]That eye kind of follows you around the room.
No sperm buildup here, though I'm recovering from massive sperm depletion. 10 chicas in 10 days. Some only one hour, most multi-hour and a couple TLN. It was hard work, but somebody's got to do it.
I didn't plan on posting here for awhile, frankly the quality of discussion from the right has been largely (though not entirely) underwhelming. But if others want to continue, I'm happy to chime in.
It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear. The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort. The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy) with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Your response to the the question, eloquently posed by none other than Wild Walleye was lacking, to cast it in a generous light.
"My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it." [/QUOTE]Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said... hang on... let me find it... oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.
So, who's case is more lacking?
Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform. This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall. Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.
Wall Street reform clears Congress.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E0MD20100715[/url]
"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."
I'll respond to Gini later. PS. Nice fish.
Giggles and shits,
More bleating from a sheep.
[QUOTE=Esten]It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear.[/QUOTE]You could not be more wrong (although you are extremely consistent in your wrong-ness (love those made-up words)
[quote=]The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort.[/quote] But in the same way that the stripper sees the monger as an ATM.
[quote=]The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy)[/QUOTE]The left believes in lots of fantasies (e. G. Global warming, nuclear disarmament will make us safe, if we are nice to Iran they won't try to kill us, etc. Even if you were right, wouldn't that mean that wealth becomes concentrated amongst. Gee wilikers. Those who actually create and earn it?
[quote=]with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.[/QUOTE]Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?
[quote=]Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said. Hang on. Let me find it. Oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I forgot you can't read, unless it is democrat talking points. I should have sent you an audio file.
[quote=]So, who's case is more lacking?[/QUOTE]You asked, so I'd have to vote that your case sucks ass.
[quote=]Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform.[/QUOTE]Please wow me with one "reform" in this legislation. Can you describe in detail any one function that the financial sector provides?
[quote=] This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall.[/QUOTE]That's like taking it in the pooper from a giant tranny and hoping it turns out to be a real chica.
[quote=]Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.[/QUOTE]Maybe they could get some of those racist douche bags from the NAACP to come over and tell them how to get rid of all the crackers.
[quote=]"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."[/QUOTE]That is one of the most idiotic quotes (made by someone other than you) that I have ever heard. It comes from the perspective that "Wall St" was wrong from the start and only spent $ on lobbyists to cover their evil doings and that they were only unsuccessful because of their public opinion gaffe of paying bonuses. This presumes that using lobbyists is bad and that those who employ them are bad and if they hadn't paid bonuses the legislation would have been defeated by the lobbying effort. In the news biz they use to tell you that you need to target (write) your story for audiences with an average comprehension level of an 8th grader. Nice to see that the press no longer needs to dumb down its stories for the ignorant masses. I wonder if Reuters takes this same approach to covering the SEIU or even the New Black Panthers. There are tens of thousands of businesses that never took tarp money or had their bonuses aired on the news that will suffer because of this legislation not to mention the fact that it will costs every last American more to effectuate any type of transaction.
[quote=]I'll respond to Gini later.[/QUOTE]Don't waste your time.
[quote=] PS. Nice fish.[/QUOTE]Only smart thing you said today.
[quote=]Giggles and shits,[/QUOTE]Would be if the stakes weren't so high.
More grunting from a pig.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?[/QUOTE]News flash for Walleye:
[I]The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class. [/i]
Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.
So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?
[QUOTE=Esten]So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?[/QUOTE]If the others whose labor generates the wealth are so worried about it - why don't they figure out how to make money themselves off of their labor?
What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.
I worked through being a peon in my younger years, to a valued employee who contributed to other's success, to a middle-manager getting bonuses and stock options with people contributing their work to my success. Then I realized I could make more money if I went out and contracted those same services I was now managing to the types of people that employeed me, and I could do it cheaper than it would cost them to hire employees like me.
I have been successful and I have been busted. I have taken risks that paid off and I have taken risks that crippled me financially. They say that often successful businessmen fail a number of times before they hit it big.
When I hit it big, employ maybe hundreds or thousands of people - are they entitled to more because I, personally, am making a lot of money and am wealthy?
Bullshit.
They can get their money the same way I did.
If they can't, then thank god there are people out there who CAN make money and employ those who CAN'T.
That works for all walks of life. The constitution says we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" as an inalienable right. That doesn't mean that if we aren't happy it's ok to take from those who are.
Men are created equally in terms of everyone coming from the union of a man and a woman and therefore being human and deserving as the same respect and opportunites but it ends there. EVERYONE is entitled to life and liberty, but to find happiness, you're on your own. At least according to OUR constitution. You aren't entitled to happiness, just the pursuit of it. That means that you, yourself, no one else, are responsible for finding that happiness.
If money and status and power and things provide you with happiness, you are free to pursue that all you want - but just because you want it and can't make it doesn't mean that you are entitled to it. If you aren't able to find it, you'd best find happiness elsewhere.
I'm not responsible to bring you happiness.
All of the "you" above was to a generic "you", not Esten, although being human, it includes Esten as well:)
[QUOTE=Esten]The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class. [/QUOTE]As stated, that is complete bull. You are trying to intimate that the poor and middle class somehow account for the majority of GDP. You are also trying to fudge the line between labor and productivity. While I would be willing to agree that the vast majority of laborers come from the poor and middle classes, that is where it ends. As for innovation, I am afraid that you missed the mark here as well. Most innovation these days is created through investment by corporations. While individuals who come from the poor or middle classes may contribute to those innovations via work-for-hire relationships, they do not share the risk of the group writing the checks (including their pay checks) therefore they don't have the same interest in the upside.
[QUOTE=Esten]Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.
So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?[/QUOTE]The left also refuses to recognize that contrary to what their finance partners (the unions) say, this is a services economy (services accounted for 76% of GDP in 2005) That is quite an evolution (can I use that term in this audience? From an economy dominated by subsistence farming, a little more than a century ago. This is why the SEIU has become so powerful.
Another fallacy that the left likes to hang its arguments on is labor. Labor is this, labor is that. This is because the left and the democrat party are bought and paid for by Big Labor (a cabal that makes the mafia and Big Oil look like pussies) If you want to see the purest example of profiting from the fruits of another's labor look at organized crime. I mean organized labor.
The fact of the matter is labor is labor. If it required much skill, it would be called "skilled labor" or if it required thinking, you can trade that blue collar for a white one. Unskilled labor is a commodity (one most people don't want)
While I do, sentimentally, miss some 'industry' I find it deliciously ironic that Labor has simultaneously accelerated our evolution to a services economy by pricing us out of the global manufacturing market, killed off many large employers (who employed union members) and shipped millions of would-be-union-dues-paying-member jobs to other countries.
What is even better is that the c*nts that love the unions for representing the little people over look the multi-million dollar pay packages that union execs receive and the billions spent on union infrastructure (seen the DC HQ lately) and lobbying (wonder who gets those gigs) These are the ones with whom you should take issue not with private citizens willing to risk their own assets to create jobs.
Mongers,
If this bill becomes law and is enacted nationwide, I will concur that the USA is becoming a Socialist nightmare and join the right-wing survivalist cause.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/us_time/08599200535800[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,
If this bill becomes law and is enacted nationwide, I will concur that the USA is becoming a Socialist nightmare and join the right-wing survivalist cause.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/us_time/08599200535800[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Next the Congress will seek to make us all Sitzpinklers!
So you guys defend writing false evaluations and other forms of worker abuse? LOL
This bill sounds like common sense. If you treat your employees with respect and fairness you should have nothing to worry about.
[QUOTE=El Queso]What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.[/QUOTE]El Queso: We all agree on incentivizing and rewarding risk-taking and individual effort.
If your focus is on the business owner and the entrepreneur, your view is understandable. But if you are successful and start making a 7-figure salary, if you care about anything else in this world besides your own self-enrichment, you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible. Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts, the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs, the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc. Or even the community which gave you a big tax break. The real fallacy is the successful businessman who thinks he did it all on his own.
If your focus is on improving society, then your view is narrow and problematic given today's economic realities. The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one. And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital, and increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas. The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed) while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.
There is plenty of room to foster risk-taking and entrepreneurial effort, and reward those who do when they succeed, without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.
[QUOTE=Esten]you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible.[/quote]Estan, he did share. They got paid!
[QUOTE=Esten]Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts.[/quote]Paid!
[QUOTE=Esten], the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs.[/quote]They were paid!
[QUOTE=Esten]the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc.[/quote]They all got PAID, with employer-paid benefits and taxes piled on top!
[QUOTE=Esten]The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one.[/quote]Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.
[QUOTE=Esten]And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital.[/quote]Yes, it's hard work, otherwise we'd see more people doing it instead of seeking the shelter of a structured job.
[QUOTE=Esten]And increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas.[/quote]More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.
[QUOTE=Esten]The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed)[/quote]They got paid! If they want the bigger rewards, then they need to put in the extra hours and take the risks.
[QUOTE=Esten]while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.[/quote]Yea, thinking "[I]if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves.[/i]"
[QUOTE=Esten]without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.[/QUOTE]Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.
Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead i.e. work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.
In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad. Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! Don't point to GM or Chrysler as examples of "helping out" those were nothing but political payoffs to the unions by the Obama administration at the expense of the bond and stock holders.
By the way, the current outrageous salaries and bonuses of some CEO's are due directly to liberals. Back in the late 60's and 70's the wonderful liberal thinkers of the time decided the American business leader was much too cautious and conservative (back then the CEO only made a few multiples of what the "average" employee of his company made and was more concerned with long term growth and stability of the company) so to motive him (the American business leader) these wonderful liberals decided to tie salary / bonuses / other financial perks to short term performance. Well it didn't take long for CEO's to figure out they could inflate earnings through short sighted business decisions as well as accounting chicanery (with the AICPA turning a blind eye) to greatly increase their income and from that point on it has continued to spiral out of control and still does (AIG paying bonus to the very folks who got them in the mess to start with, et al) Now that the liberals ideas have come back to bite them in the ass they complain about the very situtaion they created.
So Esten get a grip and try to gain a basic understanding of the human animal. Most folks just want to play it safe and complain about how they deserve more without doing a damn thing about it.
End of rant.
Doppleganger
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead I. E. Work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.
In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad.[/QUOTE]"Eat what you kill" is all that I have known for 20 years. I have great years and I have had terrible years. I've been rich and I've been broke (twice) I have helped to build companies that employ hundreds of people and reached huge market valuations. I have never asked for help and it has never been offered to me. When I got wiped out, I stopped spending on superfluous stuff and worked harder. I created and I prospered. It is hell on the individual and even harder on the family.
The primary reason why the recovery hasn't shown up yet, is because our government is killing off the true risk takers, forcing them to sit on the sidelines or driving them to foreign markets to seek opportunity. In this current anti-business (particularly anti-small business) environment there has been so much additional regulation (I. E. cost) and uncertainty (I. E. risk=cost) added to the equation that it is difficult to start something new and even harder to finance it. The greatest constrictor on the flow of capital to new and growing businesses is risk. The worst kind of risk is undefined risk (I. E. we don't know what it is but, it is waiting for us down the road)
Because of the uncertainty created by our government, and for no other reason, the primary source of jobs in the usual recovery "small business" has been sidelined.
For example, within the 5,000+ pages of legislation (healthcare and financial reform) are hundreds of tax hikes (called different things) on businesses and individuals. They are discovering more ever day. No one really knows what is in there or what the effects will be. One example is the 1099 requirement for every expenditure over $600. I estimate that alone will require at least one additional clerical person for every 250 transactions (new computer, airline tickets, hotel bill, etc) to track all vendor usage, get the information (i.e. get AA's TIN, etc) fill out the forms and to ensure compliance. If I eat at La Chacrita 10 times at an average of $60 per visit (I know it doesn't cost that much) I now need their TIN. That new clerical person is going to cost me $35k plus benefits, insurance, etc. So my expenses go up by something like $50k for every $150k I spend (cost of goods sold) with no additional revenue coming in for the expenditure. If I make a gross margin of 33% and a profit margin of 20% , the additional expenditure means that I make no profit (i.e. I work for free) if I only do $250K in revenues. At $1 million in revenues the expenditure takes 25% of the profit that I would otherwise make. I am sure as hell not going to add other employees given the pay cut the government is forcing on me.
Why would any sane person with any business sense put such job killing provision on small business?
Another example, if I project that my new venture will make a 10% profit (i.e. the money the owners get to keep after everything else is paid for) once it gets up to speed (say in year 3) and I missed a few taxes or incorrectly modeled the impact of the legislation on my cash flow and I was only off by 10% , the owners (i.e. the ones who put up all the money) get nothing. Therefore, they (entrepreneurs and capital sources) wait or go somewhere else where the situation is more static.
[quote=]Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! [/QUOTE]During the past 20 years, bearing 100% of the risk, I have contributed to putting many people to work and other activities that benefit the economies (local & federal) In exchange, my cost of doing business is going up, my income taxes are going up, my cap-gain taxes are going up and my property taxes have tripled (in just 10 years). My existence does not cost the local or federal govt anything. I do not use or enjoy any government services that I don't specifically pay for via direct fees. As for enjoying national security and local services (fire, police, public works, schools) I am paying for them many times over through my taxes. I pay for everything I use and for lots of stuff others, many of whom don't deserve it, use too.
WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers, and you must agree we are definitely the minority.
Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.
You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.
My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.
Doppelganger
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers and you must agree we are definitely the minority.
Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.
You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.
My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.
Doppelganger[/QUOTE]I was agreeing that: 1) we are a small minority that power a huge chunk of the economy and 2) they (the left) is doing everything it can to destroy us (and U. S.)
The question that still remains is, who will pay for all this when we're all gone?
Save your key strokes, guys. He will never get it. His comments are so far off the mark that no amount of persuasion or debate will make any difference. Simply put: He's lost.
I guarantee you he's never started a business and never will. He may claim otherwise, but comments like that cannot possibly emanate from someone who has started a business -- unless perhaps it was a complete and total failure from the get-go. There's an old saying: Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I'm not saying he's a teacher. But I am saying he's not among those who "can." Having never had the experience of taking the risks associated with starting an enterprise, he'll never get it. It's all just hypothetical. That's abundantly apparent from his posts.
I do have to disagree a bit on another issue: The new 1099 requirements shouldn't add much extra clerical expense. Any small business using even slightly sophisticated accounting software, e. G. Quickbooks, can easily track how much they pay vendors. Credit card transactions might be a bit more difficult, but they always have been. At the end of the year, you simply load your 1099s and push a button. You do need to get more TINs from vendors, but once you enter that info, it's pretty much a breeze. You may jam up your printer and the mailing expense and weight of these things (for mail carriers) will be significant, but they're not that hard to process.
The real question with the new requirements is "why?" The only real answer is that government doesn't trust businesses. It's a silly, unnecessary requirement characteristic of this administration, which also suffers from a paucity of "doers" and an overemphasis on academics, professional politicians and socialists in sheep's clothing. At base, that's one of the chief problems as I see it. These folks are making regulations for areas in which they have utterly no experience, from the perspective that all business is partially or wholly evil, and they're really making a grand mess of things. It will take decades to undo the carnage.
At the beginning, I was willing to give Obama a chance and posted comments to that effect here. But, there's a point where you need to stop giving second, third and fourth chances. Simply put, I was wrong and I'm no longer willing to entertain that this administration has the best interests of [b]all[/b] American people at heart. Folks can call that being closed-minded, but if you don't learn from experience, then you're a fool. At this point, only fools can claim that this administration has the country on the right track. Unfortunately, polls show that 44% of the country are fools. Still, there's reason for hope: About 20% of the country has figured it out over the past year, and that number increases each month. Esten, I'm afraid, will never be amongst them, not with what he's passing off as logic here.
Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.
WW, well for me, I intend to take my money off shore when I retire, move to BA and live the quite life surrounded by beautiful women, quietly passing away with a big smile on my face at 110 after a session with a 19 year old chica.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.[/QUOTE]I agree with that. The health care legislation is the largest government debacle of anyone's lifetime. As someone who runs a company that employs between 800-2000 people, depending on the time of year, this legislation likely will force us to [I]drop[/i] health care coverage. We pay at least 80% of the health insurance tab and 100% of the dental for any who want it. We pay 90% of health care coverage for some, and 100% for others. We didn't do this because we were forced to by the government. And, contrary to Esten's perverted logic, folks who are making money do, in fact, give back without government compulsion.
Separate and apart from recordkeeping requirements, however, the new health care laws will make it far more expensive for us to provide coverage, so we'll eventually have to dump it and pay the fine. Eventually, everyone will look to the government as the providers of health care manna, which was the Democrats' true intention in passing this legislation. They wanted to build a new dependency. But, as anyone who looks at the disasters surrounding government-funded pensions around the country can attest, eventually the costs will spiral out of control and the entire system will collapse under its own weight. The truth is, there is no free lunch. The government's effort to legislate away this basic fact of life will only mean that we pay far more later for the supposedly "free lunch."
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.
WW, well for me, I intend to take my money off shore when I retire, move to BA and live the quite life surrounded by beautiful women, quietly passing away with a big smile on my face at 110 after a session with a 19 year old chica.[/QUOTE]The 1099 headache will be bigger than you think. I use quick books and have no doubt that if I enter every non-EFT transaction by hand, I will be able to track them. However, I will have single days when I could trigger 30-50 1099s and I can be working on behalf of 10 different companies. I will then need to get 30-50 TINs, I will then have to physically enter the info and there will be a need for human oversight, therefore it's a clerical position not an accounting one.
I presented the 1099 issue as an example of the stuff that is hidden in the legislation. Put them all together and kiss your profits goodbye.
The surface reason for the 1099 stuff, as I stated before, is to enable the IRS to model all of our businesses in order to let the government control our businesses and tax us to death. One more step to Orwell's vision.
However, there is a pattern in the administration's behavior (abetted by congress): 1) the 1099 issue, 2) the tax on buying and selling gold coins (contained in the health care legislation) 3) the 2000 or so dealerships Obama forced GM and Chrysler to close were primarily in rural, white, red state areas (the Inspector General's report is scathing on the racism shown by the Obama Admin in this process) and 4) the lack of a response to the gulf oil spill.
These all disproportionately impact voters who didn't support Obama in the last election: Small business owners, self-made individuals, conservatives, and red state citizens (a significant majority of whom happen to be Caucasian) The good thing is that America is sick of this Marxist and will go along way to making up for the colossal mistake of electing him, come November.
Stan,
Can you talk a little about why your current benefit package includes health insurance? It's a hugely expensive benefit (a good plan for 2000 people can easily be $20M / year) so I assume you have some underlying business reason to offer it.
If you drop the benefit, what effect, if any, do you expect the change to have on your ability to recruit and retain employees?
Are there specific provisions in the reform package that will force you to drop it or is your current thinking based on a belief that the package as a whole will increase premiums to an unaffordable level?
If premium costs are the issue, what were you thinking about the future of your health benefit prior to the reform package? Most companies were already seeing 8-12% on-going annual increases in premiums so your costs were already tracking to double every 5-8 years. At what point were health care costs going to overwhelm you anyway?
If you drop employer health care insurance for your employees, what will you do with the savings? Fund a health reimbursement plan? Increase wages to partially offset the the cost that your employees will pay to get health insurance on the open market? Create or improve another benefit, e. G. 401K match? Take it to the bottom line? What about the following year when you could have expected premiums to increase by 8%? Will you start to factor health care inflation into raises?
It seems to me that if there was an effective market for individual health insurance, we would all be better off than under the current system where employees are limited to the options provided by their employer. I suspect at this point, most companies would prefer to be out of the health insurance benefit business but realize that it would leave their employees without a viable alternative and themselves at a serious disadvantage in attracting and retaining employees.
;)
So many points and put-downs, so little time. Where to start.
I agree people who run businesses have the best ideas, views and experience - to create and grow successful businesses where success is defined as profit and return to the investor or risk-taker. And of course many companies do 'give back' - to some extent. This is commendable. I was simply taking issue with this notion that workers should not share at all in a company's financial successes.
But this discussion on what's best for business, is not the same discussion as how to improve society. It sounds like some of you think its the same discussion. It's a related discussion but not identical. You need to include the failures of the private sector not just the successes.
You can try and marginalize me and imply I do not have proper credentials for the discussion, but the fact is there are millions of Americans who share my views, including among them successful and wealthy businessmen.
This post by easygo is without question one of the stupidiest posts I have ever read. What a dope! It is obvious that this fella is NOT an employer in the US. What idiot would ask about employee retention with double digit unemployment! Not sure what planet EasyGo lives on but it's NOT earth. Duh. WAKE UP! It's not 1995 anymore! Health benefits don't drive retention in this current market. Dropping health benefits in small business is absolutely a reality in lieu of obamanations socilaist policies. Currently, an employee who performs their job at a level so incompetent that they are terminated can enjoy 65% of their colbra paid for 15 months by their previous employer (pre-obama was 0%) Do the math and wonder why small business is considering dropping health care as a benefit. Thanks Obama for again disinsentivizing small business for offering healthcare. The addition of looming national government run healthcare was just the cherry on the sundae. At the end of the day, small business drives the american economy EasyGo. Obama has done everything he can to inhibit small business since the clown took office. As my previous posts have indicated, novemeber is just around the corner. Get ready for real change EasyGo and stop proving to all of us you are a fool. Better you remain silent and at least make us wonder if you might be an idiot. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toyman
One more.
[QUOTE=Jackson]Estan, he did share. They got paid![/QUOTE]So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded?
[QUOTE]Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.[/QUOTE]Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply. And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. molding/manufacturing industries). True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.
If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.
[QUOTE]More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.[/QUOTE]Not in all or even most cases, see above.
[QUOTE]Yea, thinking "[I]if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves.[/i]"[/QUOTE]I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth. Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.
[QUOTE]Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.[/QUOTE]Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite. Here's my evidence, please post yours:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient[/url]
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Esten]So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded? [/QUOTE]The appropriate compensation package is determined by the broader market taking into account many factors including the value contributed to the operation via the particular skill set in question and local supply and demand for those skills.
[quote=]Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply.[/QUOTE]The world is flat, damn it!
My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow. As part of the ruling class, we must convince the plebes that the pie can get bigger so that they: 1) will leave our piece alone, 2) do all the shit work we don't want to do, and 3) accept a lower wage today with the promise of upside participation tomorrow. If you would be so kind as to keep this information to yourself and refrain from disseminating it to the masses, we of the ruling class would be eternally grateful.
Just a couple questions, because supply and demand are finite and inexorably limited, how did GDP grow from $223.2 billion in 1945 to $14.3 trillion in 2009? Similarly, US household net worth inexplicably grew from $666.5B to $59.52T during that same period. I don't get it, if the pie can't grow, where did all this wealth come from?
Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%)
Interestingly, during that same period, the percentage of people living below the poverty line represented by Caucasians (you know, crackers, white devils, whitie, etc) increased by 8.25% while the percentage represented by blacks dropped 21.7%. Therefore, using Esten's logic, the black population is prospering at the expense of Latinos! Let's get 'em!
[quote=] And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. Molding / manufacturing industries)[/QUOTE]You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital.
[quote=]True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.[/QUOTE]Again, talking out your ass. Most venture investments today are service and process oriented (remember the part about our service economy? There still is plenty of investment in proprietary tech, particularly in the bio space, which is chasing innovation. If new, proprietary innovation could not be protected to ensure that the inventor is able to recoup his investment and make a profit (if a market for his widget ever develops) there would be no innovation. Maybe if the VCs sought out some of your poor, innovators they could cut them in on the action and get them to invent some cool new stuff.
[quote=]If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile.[/QUOTE]Got it. Thanks for explaining away the growth in net worth and GDP in such a succinct manner.
[quote=]We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs.[/QUOTE]I am getting dizzy! First you tell me the pie can't get bigger. Now you tell me it can get bigger but that the wealthy take all the money. The numbers show that massive growth over the past 60 years or so has been matched by new jobs that have more than kept pace with the growth in the economy and the population. During this time, I thought workers have been protected by the govt and the unions, but you tell me that they have been enslaved to work without just compensation. This is so unfair! They should at least be recognized as indentured servants instead of working class!
[quote=]In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.[/QUOTE]You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)
[quote=]Not in all or even most cases, see above. [/QUOTE]Above erroneous citation was obliterated, try again.
[quote=]I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth.[/QUOTE]I would say look in the mirror. I am not suggesting that you are a parasite living directly off the host (I. E. Working Americans) rather you and people that think like you are facilitating and enabling the expansion of the entitlement class and accelerating its drain on America, its people and its economy. The problem with too many parasites is that they will eventually kill the host. Then the maggots move in and strip the carcass clean leaving nothing, not even compost to grow something new.
[quote=]Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.[/QUOTE]With names like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore. Sound like you are describing congress and liberal elites.
[quote=]Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]You see what you want to see. You are living in an alternate reality, which is entirely your right to do so. Please enjoy it.
[quote=] Here's my evidence, please post yours:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient[/url]
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url][/QUOTE]Please extol use with Gini's virtues. He was definitely a left-wing loon, however, for some reason I don't think he'd be a fan of our current president (hint: he (Obama) doesn't look too arian to me, if you know what I mean)
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye] You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. [/QUOTE]WW - as they say, if the shoe fits!
Ad hominem attacks are the intellectual midgets last resort when faced with cogent insights that puts their own imaginary truths to the test.
Why anyone still posts on this thread is truly a mystery.
[QUOTE=Esten]If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.[/QUOTE]Esten, I responded to this earlier: [url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=410528#post410528[/url]
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.
Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the USA. For example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased.
Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.
Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.
I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter/debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow.[/QUOTE]You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time. But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.
You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there. It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.
[QUOTE]Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%) [/QUOTE]I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.
[QUOTE]You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital. [/QUOTE]Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding)(does that make you a moron too?). I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital. I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground. My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.
[QUOTE]You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)[/QUOTE]The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct. ROTFLMAO! On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical. Forget about him if you want, there are other sources that show the same thing. I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries).
You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.
BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.
[QUOTE=Tiny12]There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.
Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the U. S. -- for example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased. [/QUOTE]I found and read the WSJ article you mentioned. There are some good points in there. Dems are not so big government as the right media makes them out to be (I'm sure I'll get some howling here from others) The big item is health care, but I don't think there is a strong case that countries with government run health care have weaker economies or lower quality of life metrics than the US.
The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:
[url]http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm[/url]
I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.
[QUOTE]Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.[/QUOTE]Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.
[QUOTE=Esten]Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.[/QUOTE]How does that saying go? If the shoe fits. If the latter argument were true, the current president would not be BHO.
[quote=]I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter / debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.[/QUOTE]But Alinsky tells me to atack the messenger.
[quote=]You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you just made a poor argument.
[quote=]But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.[/QUOTE]Just because some big competitor comes to town doesn't mean you can't expand into new products or services or an entirely new business. Just because you opened up a pizza parlor on the corner of Lost and Disoriented doesn't mean you have a birthright to all pizza transactions in the neighborhood.
[quote=]You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there.[/QUOTE]The demand is infinite if you deliver the correct goods and services. If everyone opens up a pizza parlor, they will fail.
[quote=] It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.[/QUOTE]If small business and newly-started small businesses are the key to jobs in a recovery, I guess then it would be the path for the population. If entrepreneurial ventures are responsible, in large part, for solving unemployment, I would venture (no pun intended) that it is a broad-based solution for addressing: unemployment, poverty and distribution of wealth.
[quote=]I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.[/QUOTE]You probably shouldn't have skipped math class to get high all the time. If the percentage in poverty is slightly down over the period of time, then, the percentage is down. What is striking is that despite a huge increase in population, including many low and no-income types, the overall percentage has not increased.
[quote=]Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding) does that make you a moron too?[/QUOTE]If the shoe fits, I will gladly wear it. However, your point is that big, scary, evil monopolstic ghost ships (cause appearantly they don't have any employees who receive salaries, benefits, etc) have taken over industries (including molding) without out there being any benefit to society. That is clearly wrong. Is it better to have a Wal-mart employing 300 people or 20 mom and pop stores employing 3 people each? As for molding, I clearly stated that the realities of the industry have changed, those that can't compete have themselves to blame.
[quote=]I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital.[/QUOTE]Again, showing your ignorance. The electronic manufacturers to whom I alluded generally range in size from 60-120K sqft of manufacturing floor space with 3-10 million dollars worth of equipment within the facility and generate from $15 to $60 million in revenues per year and employ 50-200 people.
[quote=]I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground.[/quote]It all starts with one client, working out of one's garage. There are 3,000 examples of this in the above-mentioned sector.
[quote=]My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.[/QUOTE]Your point is that you want a turn-key, fully-operational, no-risk venture where you can sit in a Herman Miller chair, stare out the window and not worry about performance. Of course that isn't worth debating.
[quote=]The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct.[/QUOTE]Yes.
He was a chief propagandist for fascism. "Gini was also a leading fascist theorist and ideologue who wrote The Scientific Basis of Fascism in 1927. Gini was a proponent of the concept of organicism and applied it to nations."
Of course he can be trusted to be completely objective in his research and recommendations. Just like wacko leftists can be trusted to provide honest data and analysis about the status of the global climate situation.
[quote=]ROTFLMAO![/quote]Don't hurt yourself.
[quote=]On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical.[/QUOTE]I quite agree. Fascists during the 20th century were just a hoot. Particularly those guys in the brown shirts with their ovens and showers.
[quote=]Forget about him if you want[/QUOTE]Even if I could, I suspect that there are a few who can't forget the legacy of more than 10 million innocents killed by fascists during the last century.
[quote=]there are other sources that show the same thing.[/QUOTE]Garbage in, garbage out. If it is based on Gini, it is crap, in my opinion.
[quote=]I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries) [/QUOTE]Because the US has more wealthy people, trying to force an apples to apples comparison is great fodder for the left.
[quote=]You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.[/QUOTE]Some are now waffling on this stating that it will decrease tax revenue. More anti-business, anti-growth legislation. Rah, rah! Let's kill the engine.
[quote=]BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.[/QUOTE]See above comment. That would be good. Better if it were eliminated all together because every cent of a capital gain has already been taxed multiple times. Repeal the cap gains tax today, good bye jobless recovery, hello second term for Obama. Oops, on second thought, let's keep the Obamalaise going for a while longer.
[QUOTE=Esten]The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:
[url]http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm[/url]
I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.
Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.[/QUOTE]Esten, You'd make a good politician. At present the US is recovering from a recession, and unemployment benefits in the US are more generous than they've been historically. If you look back over the last 20 or 30 years, back to Reagan, unemployment in the US has been much lower than in Australia, Canada or Western Europe. You're right about Japan. Please note that when I mentioned Japan, I didn't include it in the same category with Western Europe, regarding unemployment.
Among the ways you can go about improving income equality are (1) higher taxes on ordinary income that would discourage over-achievers from working harder and small businesses from taking risks, (2) higher taxes on capital gains and dividends and interest that would reduce savings and investment, and (3) overly generous unemployment benefits. I think there's a strong correlation between "3" and the rate of unemployment. The correlation between measures of income inequality and unemployment would be weaker.
I think each side accuses the other of extremes. I did this to you when I brought up Cuba and the Soviet Union. Most people on my side of the issue don't think people should do without education, health care or food because they don't have money. Look, for example, what Jackson has done with his time and money to support the less fortunate in Argentina. And, contrary to what you've been writing, I suspect Walleye et al are free market types, that believe much more strongly than most democrat politicians (and the majority of republicans) that there should be competition among businesses.
Regarding your link, I don't think you get my point. I'm not arguing about whether statistical measures indicate there's more inequality in the US versus, say Europe. I am arguing that the average middle class or lower middle class American is better off than his counterpart in Europe, and I believe statistics of MEDIAN income adjusted for purchasing power support that. Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car(s), air conditioning, etc.
Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car (s) air conditioning, etc."
Along with a big mortgage, a car loan, a student loan, and more credit card debt that mostly exist (for better and worse) due to government policies designed to make credit both cheap and widely available. The leverage of the "credit society" means that when things are good, they are very good, but when things are bad, they are really, really bad.
It also helps that prices are significantly lower in the USA because of government policies like free trade and a relatively light (compared to other countries) government footprint in most business activities.
Sure the stock market has improved, but how can it be a 'recovery' with no new jobs, millions on unemployment, crippling national debt and a dour outlook for the future?
Why hasn't the recovery kicked in? The Fed has added more than $3T to the money supply and artificially held rates low. There is more than $1T in excess reserves at the Fed and more than $2T sitting on the sidelines on corporate cash. That is $3T that could be investing in jobs. Why isn't it being deployed? Can't Obama just order them to give it all to Acorn? Why don't these holders of capital put it to work?
Uncertainty. Uncertainty regarding fiscal policy, regulation and taxation. All of which Obama has control over and all of which he feigned moderation whilst on the campaign trail. He forced healthcare against the will of a majority of Americans. Between just two bills there are more than 5,000 pages, hundreds of new regulations and hundreds of new taxes. No one knows the full extent of this. Therefore they are uncertain. Therefore they sit on cash.
Easy Go, I agree. Too much debt and current account deficits have boosted our standard of living, and that's not good.
Esten, yea lets tax the heck out of all those capital gains so we punish all those fat cats. Last time I checked it was investments from retirement funds that had the biggest chunk of the market, so let's just tax the heck out of all those folks that are retired and planned their retirement around their investments of their money since most did not count on Social Security – I know I'm not and I am only a very few years away from pulling the plug. While you are at it that will have the unintended consequence of drying up investment capital for new companies as well as any expansion of existing companies, why invest if the government is going to take a big chunk of it.
Easy Go, yea it was really tough when the school loan programs, banks and credit card companies came along and FORCED folks to sign those loan agreements and then twisted their arm to make all those ancillary purchases of other goods! What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Don't give me the BS about the school loans, mortgages, loans and credit cards, nobody held a gun to their head they did it of their own free will, got in a jam and don't want to accept responsibility and look for someone else to blame.
I put myself through my undergrad and both post grad programs, no loans. The work I did while in my undergrad program in a college town where the minimum wage then was less than half of what it is now included cleaning chemistry & biology labs, caring for lab rats and pigs, literally shoveling shit out cow barns and the list goes on. (Shoveling shit got me prepared for what I see on this board and from liberals)
Too many people are looking for someone to blame and not taking responsibility for their own actions. We have bred two generations of them with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" - welfare and Medicaid.
Those who can do, those who can't complain.
I must have missed the part where I said something about predatory lending or made excuses for over-extended borrowers.
The availability of cheap and easy credit has been a fact of life for the last 30+ years and has enabled many people to have a higher material standard of living than in countries where credit was scarce and expensive. On the downside, when something bad happens like higher than expected unemployment, a sudden tightening or increase in the cost of credit, or an unexpected and dramatic loss in value of the assets securing the loan, a heavily leverage society is going to have more severe problems than a lightly leveraged society.
As a society, the USA made a choice (through elected government) to be highly leveraged and now we are dealing with the consequences. Not surprisingly, groups are trying to use the political process to minimize the consequences, (e. G. Higher taxes, foreclosures, bankruptcies, loss of political power, that specific groups will suffer. Is this a surprise to anyone?
But getting back to personal responsibility - this is something that I think is the key difference between the Right and the Left. It's a big reason why we get taxed so heavily, whether we want it or not. Health care, retirement (SocSec) welfare, etc. Meddling in schools to the point where we are now paying more for administration costs than where the money RIGHTLY belongs - in the teachers' pockets. And so on.
There was a time when there was no welfare. You worked and fed yourself or you had problems. There were thousands of societies and charities, funded by rich people and middle class people, out of the goodness of their hearts, to help people who did not have food to eat. People either saved for their retirement, or knew that their kids were going to help them out.
My folks and their families, both sides, were poor as hell. We're talking the '20s through the '50s. They were TOO FREAKING PROUD to accept a DIME from anyone else because they knew their own self-worth and they busted their asses doing whatever it took to make ends meet and provide for their family.
Now, if you don't have a job, or you don't have enough money, the government steps in and forces income redistribution. It takes away the person's individual responsibility to provide for himself. It takes away the heart-felt responsiblity to help those less fortunate that many rich would help with in the past - who the hell wants to contribute MORE to charities when the government is taking their money and redistributing it at gunpoint and giving it to people who have become professional at living off the government teat.
I too worked my way through college without any student loans. I worked offshore as a roustabout during two summers through an intern program at Tenneco, working twelve hours a day two weeks on and two weeks off in the middle of the Gulf Of Mexico. I also worked a job while in school, and when the summer job program at Tenneco got cut back and I couldn't do that any more, I worked three freaking jobs (busboy, game packager and car oil changer) during the school year to make enough money to live and go to school.
I barely made enough money to make ends meet. I remember when macaroni and cheese was 4 boxes for $1 (not Kraft - it was always the store brand) and a five pound bag of potatoes cost a dollar. I could eat for a week for about $4!
Now, I'm not nearly rich and have had some bad times recently due to the recession. But that doesn't stop me. Although I have paid unemployment taxes, I am too damned proud to take unemployment - I work harder than I have previously because I know THAT's the way to recover my losses, not accepting something from the government. I am not necessarily disparaging unemployment benefits 100% - but I was laid off in the past during a recession and NEVER had to take unemployment benefits for TWO FREAKING YEARS.
How many of those people who are unemployed and asking for benefits haven't taken the necessary steps to find something to get them by? Are they too proud to work at McDonalds or WalMart (or wherever) even if they need to work two jobs to make ends meet? Are they too proud to cut yards or offer some other services that could help make ends meet? After all, there is a limit on how much unemployment pays, no matter what your salary was. Most of the time, it doesn't really come close to covering your entire salary anyway and these people find ways to live off of unemployment. Why can't they get off their asses and find something to live off of while they recuperate?
The answer is because the US citizenry is becoming ignorantly spoiled and falsely proud.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that stops people from putting effort out to get what they want out of life. In the past, yes, there were big roadblocks for many, including minorities. But let's face it - no matter how much the NAACP wants to rail on about racial problems, legally the ability to discriminate doesn't exist any more and there are ways to fight it when it does happen. Minorities can work just as hard as I worked when I had no money, but they are so used to feeling sorry for themselves because the government (and those in power on the left, panhandling to those who put them in power) tells them that's their situation.
We are promised the right to a PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness itself. But people on the Left want to make sure that the government GIVES people happiness, not the right to pursue it.
Related to a recovery - those who believe it, just go ahead and keep listening to the current administration's outright lies about that and it will make you all feel better, I'm sure.
I run a business (that is just me, now!), and I can state without doubt that a recovery where it matters, in the private sector with small businesses providing services, and medium and large businesses who need those services, that THERE AIN'T NO RECOVERY happenning yet.
Almost no one is willing to spend money on services, to hire people to replace those they have laid off, etc. Credit is still extremely tight (or non-existent) and everyone is freaked out about the future. Obama and his folk are so freaking clueless about the real business community. They are much more concerned about saving union jobs than those jobs that are much more numeric - non-union. Even to the point where the deal with GM was so union-beneficial that it should make most people choke. The burden they are placing on those who will pay for these programs is tremendous and those who actually own or manage businesses don't know, literally, whether to piss or go broke.
Instead of giving tax cuts (which is so evil! We can't give those fat cats a break! Even though many [maybe most] of those "fat cats" are people like me! They are pumping money into government programs and keeping police and firemen and administrators who produce NO WEALTH and HIRE NO PEOPLE. Yeah, that makes sense.
Obama and the Democrats are suffering from personal pride and are NOT doing what is good for the country. He had in mind all of these things he was going to do for the people of the country when he ran for president, and yes, a recession hit and he had to take care of that. So instead of concentrating on what could help the country, he worries about health care and immigration reform and making sure that those who backed him are taken care of. He wants nothing more than to be able to step back and say "see, I made an impact on the country."
What he has done with placing stimulus money into the government (paying it to government employees and projects rather than providing tax cuts for those who would actually employ people) and worrying about everything EXCEPT getting the economy on track, is like me worrying about how I'm going to go out and buy a brand new sports car and keep the maid employed at the same time I'm filing bankruptcy.
[QUOTE=Easy Go]As a society, the USA made a choice (through elected government) to be highly leveraged and now we are dealing with the consequences. Not surprisingly, groups are trying to use the political process to minimize the consequences, (e. G. Higher taxes, foreclosures, bankruptcies, loss of political power, that specific groups will suffer. Is this a surprise to anyone?[/QUOTE]I understand some of what you're saying on this point. I think the point you're missing, though, is that although the elected officials that society put into place made it easier to get credit, and therefore to abuse it, the reality is the people still have the choice as to whether they want to overextend themselves.
The responsibility lies in the individual to NOT become overextended and seek credit only for what they can afford. That IS a societal condition brought about, at least in part, due to the example fo the government itself that can never seem to control its spending, no matter who is in power.
It's just that the left always abuses it more than the right, in my opinion. Obama is the worst ever, creating vastly expensive programs like health care, that are already costing WAY more than they anticipated (publicly at least - they're not stupid, they just lie real convincingly to people that are gullible)
People talka boutt he amount of money that Bush spent on the war over 6-7 years of his administration - but it's DWARFED by what Obama has done in the first year and a half of his presidency, at a time when our economy is weak and we absolutely cannot afford it.
Examples like those help show people the WRONG way to manage their finances. You can't spend your way out of debt and into successfullness.
I'm not missing any point. Many people are overly optimistic about their financial future so they make, in hindsight, a bad decision about credit. If lenders want to ignore that reality because they think they can charge a high enough risk premium or lay the risk off on somebody else, I don't have much sympathy for any of them on a macro basis. Borrowers and lenders have been making bad decisions about credit for thousands of years. Why is there suddenly because the US government runs deficits or because Obama is President?
Why does a solution that says all we need to do is embrace personal responsibility sound so ineffectual?
How do you propose to enforce personal responsibility on private parties entering into a private contract? Do we need increased government regulation to ensure everyone is acting responsibly? Or should we remove the government entirely from lending and hope it won't trigger a depression?
Why do you think it's somehow worse to spend a trillion dollars on things in the USA, aka stimulus program, rather than a trillion dollars fighting a futile war in Iraq?
It is what it is. Whining about the current bozo in charge is not going to change anything.