1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Woolley Arguments.

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by Woolleybugger, Jul 23, 2012.

  1. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Its curious that the Single Parent thing came out, because Trap has never mentioned that beofre in his discussions with me.

    Furthermore, since money is a great taboo in our society, I seriously doubt that Trap ever had access to her financial records. And thus what he is doing is extrapolating her finances from her car and from who her parents were.

    But notice the subtle racism here. Trap assumes that it is right and proper that he - a white male from a poorer background - be given EQUAL FOOTING to compete with a minority from a higher socio-economic status, and yet makes NO SIMILAR DEMAND about White Males of higher socioeconomic status.
     
  2. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    No saying something is "harmful" simply means that it has an attenuative effect on whatever is being harmed. Democracy is harmed, ie adversely impacted, by large concentrations of wealth. We see that from history and from pragmatic reasoning.

    As for econometric efficiency, its legitimate to ask that question - but traditionally it is ROI - Return On Investment or Return on Capital. IE Growth rate increase. Simple measure.

    You've never been an uneuqivocal advocate of property rights. You only have advocated the protection of the property rights OF THE WEALTHY and the violent.

    Because THE DATA LEADS US THERE.

    Yes it is one of the things they rather quickly discovered did not work well. BTW deadlocks in State leges were themselves an inhibition to democracy since it meant that a state would lack an appointee to represent them.

    So when the farm gets sold, the heirs get none of the money... RIGHHTTT.. sorry no. It does not work that way. The wealth does not go away. What happens is that the assets get reallocated into more efficent economic uses.

    Since there is no such thing as a "death tax" I don't know what you are talking about.

    Actually passing things onto your family is counterproductive to the individual. It may have EMOTIONAL appeal, but from a rational asset allocation perspective its a dumb strategy.

    No it does not. The farms are not "lost" - ownership of the assets changes hands and form, but nothing is "lost"

    Well actually the floating of the dollar improved the growth rate (hint inflation does that).

    Nope... MARGINAL tax rates are different than the fully weighted tax rate. Try again. Less emotionally more rationally.

    Wrong, and you can add Facebook to that list as well, though arguably the parents who's credit cards FB was launched on were actually the exception and wealthy.

    But Apple was funded by Steve Jobs' parents. Netscape on the credit cards of a middle class cofounder Andreeson, Microsoft took money from BillG's parents who were wealthy but also from Ballmer's and Allen's who were solidly middle class. Novel, Lotus, Genentec, Zymo, Twitter ALL THE SAME. Yes Venture Capital got into it AFTERWARDS (in the case of MSFT they didn't need the VC money the used it for business advice) - but long after the companies were already on a solid growth curve. Note also that many VCs work with "institutional investor funds". Funds like CALPERS. And CALPERS is but one middle class pension fund, in one industry in one state. http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/assets/equities/aim/mgrs/a-d.xml

    FACTS Trap FACTS. VCs don't change their investment choices based on marginal tax rates. They just dont. Having a sister and BiL who were both in the biz, and having sat on the other side of that table I can tell you that they don't. You really don't know what you are talking about here.

    Simply back to strawmen we go.

    Um you've not demonstrated that
    1) it is "bullshit" as you claim - you've offered no counterfacts
    2) No one is "penalized". Marginal tax rates that level the Marginal Utility of Income impact are not "penalties" its simply a level playing field
    3) The "individual" is very much in my consideration. OUTLIERS and SINGLETON CASES are not - not from a POLICY perspective.

    Want some oats with that straw?
     
  3. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    I think that you are trying to convince me that my interpretation of the facts and/or my principles are misguided. Having debated with you (and having read your debates with degs and Woolley), I know that is not going to happen. I am quite comfortable with my interpretation of the facts and my principles. There are lines that I will not cross. Sorry if that disappoints you. (BTW, why should I believe you vis a vis Ryan's willingness to "compromise." I have seen no evidence that he would not do exactly what he says he would do. I prefer to work on the assumption that he means every damn thing he says and wants to institute the programs that he has proposed. Romney has endorsed Ryan's economic plans, Cheney's foreign policy and winked at the moral agenda of the social conservatives. That disqualifies him for my vote.)

    Finally, my last paragraph was a prediction of what I thought would happen after the election. It was not a prediction of what I thought SHOULD happen. Personally, I don't think that Republicans have genuinely tried to find common ground with Obama and the Democrats. They have claimed principle. That is fine. I think that if Romney is elected with a Republican majority, they will run roughshod over the Democrats without any regard for Democratic principles or feelings. They will stomp on millions of Democrats. They will be just as divisive and partisan as they accuse the Democrats of being.

    If Romney is elected President, I fully expect him to be totally divisive and partisan and to try to impose his very conservative agenda on the nation. He will not represent my views. Period. Romney is not a man who can "heal" this country. Anyone who thinks that he can is fooling themselves in my opinion.

    I think that President Obama is right in saying that this election is about two fundamentally different visions about how to move this country forward. Both sides want to move the country forward in a particular way. Neither side wants the country to move backward. But neither side is pulling in quite the same direction. I accept that. If Romney is elected, I will not start pulling in a conservative direction. If Obama is reelected, I have no expectation that you will start pulling in a progressive direction. If Obama is reelected, I will be more optomistic about the direction of the country. I presume that you will feel more pessimistic. If Romney is elected, I presume that you will feel more optomistic. I will feel more pessimistic.


     
  4. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  5. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  6. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    And I try to make you see why I feel conservatives/Republicans are "misguided" (or stated another way "pulling in the wrong direction"). I don't expect to change your mind. (I do like it when folks can find some common ground and pull in the same direction but that does not happen all that often.) And I am happy if I can get a few righties off the "all libs are scum/evil" meme. That is a very powerful meme on PJ as well.

    I see the Ryan Plan in much the same way that you seem to see Obamacare. He, Romney, and the Republicans (if they control both the House and the Senate - with sufficient votes) will vote a party line and ram their agenda on the nation and call it a mandate. It will be the tyranny of the oligarchy. That is my belief. If the Republicans don't have the votes to ram their program through, there will be gridlock. If there is going to be gridlock, I would much prefer Obama.
     
  7. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
     
  8. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  9. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  10. Woolleybugger

    Woolleybugger Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    483
    I do believe that most vast fortunes are largely immoral in much the same way as a casino makes money immorally. Even if the participants enter the market understanding the rules and the unequal outcomes, the inevitable result is inequality. You can argue it away by believing in a meritocracy or by celebrating the one in a million who makes it big, that is a great selling point for capitalism. But the end result is that capitalism only succeeds at the margins, the vast majority of people end up losing relative to their contribution and efforts. The spoils are allocated unfairly in every capitalist system. There is no other way to accept capitalism unless you accept that the winners will take most of the winnings. Governments know this and enlightened capitalists know this as well. Taxation, progressive takings of the excessive spoils an uneven distribution of the profits is the only remedy if your goal is to avoid human suffering as much as possible. If your view is that human suffering is not worth considering except for Sunday Mass or during the occasional charity event then capitalism without progressive taxation penalties is right up your alley. No great nation or system has survived the long term consolidation of wealth by the few over the many. History is filled with empire after empire self-destructing once the people lose faith in the reason for existing as a group. Capitalism without forced redistribution is simply another form of servitude once the opportunities for the majority to exceed their birth positions diminish to the point where everyone just gives up. I think we are getting to that point now. All the rest of the back and forth between you two on individual arguments pro and con are like arguing about seating arrangements on a sinking ship. The ship is sinking and the reason is simple. Capitalism unchained is a broken system, it cannot continue into the future without a massive retrenchment.
     
  11. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  12. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  13. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    What if she was married and the husband divorced her? What you are really saying is that her status as a parent should have counted for nothing in the financial aid picture. BTW, you judged yourself as "destitute." Did you rely on yourself, on your family, and on your community before you asked for help from the Federal government? I don't think so.

    Sorry, I think that taking her child into account as an "expense" that the woman needed to take care of is totally legitimate. And it apparently has nothing to do with race. It sounds like if a single white mother got a grant and you didn't, you would consider that you would have been discriminated against because you were as "needy" as she was.

    BTW, was the woman with the Jaguar on welfare as well? You never mentioned that. Or are you just expanding on the actual situation?

     
  14. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    No, attenuation is attenuation. If you attenuate poverty that is good in my personal view. Things that are harmful to the existance of poverty are GOOD. what makes harm good or bad is wether the thing being harmed is something you want to support more of or less of. I've passed no moral judgement in saying that X is "harmful to democracy". PERSONALLY I value democracy. But not everyone does.

    Name a nation, society or culture ANyWHERE in the world where large concentrations of wealth did not reduce levels of democracy.
    As for pragmatic reasoning - wealth can be traded for influence. That means that the greater the disparty of wealth, the greater the disparity of influence. A disparity in influence IS BY DEFINITION the opposite of democracy. Increase the disparity of influence and you necessarily decrease democracy.

    This is simply nonsense. If the farm is more efficient as a farm, it continues to be used as a farm, same with the business. Otherwise no-one would pay that market value for the asset. Essentially you are saying that the buyer is willing to buy simply to spend money. That just does not happen.

    As for the sellers now being employees. So what? They clearly were unable to manage those assets efficiently. After all, a 35% LTV loan is not hard to pay off if you are gettng market ROI on your investment (9%). Because a 35% LTV loan even say at 12% interest rate, only requires a 4.2% Return On Assets to be break eaven. And if those assets are generateing Market Rate ROI of 9%, that leaves 4.8% profit

    OTOH if they cannot make a go of it and someone else can, or the farm makes more money as a parking lot, then that's what the market dictates. Why do you want to distort the market?

    You don't have to pay that tax when you die. You ONLY have to pay that tax as part of it being INCOME TO SOMEONE ELSE. If you donate it to charity, you have no tax. QED its a tax that is linked to INCOME FOR SOMEONE, and not simply to dying. QED it is not a 'death tax'.

    Then in essence you are refusing to discuss actual economic policy and behaviour. because economic behaviour is driven by MARGINAL and EFFECTIVE tax rates. And if the Utility of Income is below 50% - why should we not tax proportionally AT THAT MARGINAL RATE? Economic Behaviour is not linear, why do you insist on a policy that ignores this?

    You are again demonstrating your ignorance. Microsoft never needed VC money. They CHOSE to bring in a VC so that they would have the benefit of that business advice. They never needed the money. Same with pretty much all of the other startups. And as I pointed out, VCs invest regardless of the Marginal Tax rates. VC's are driven by one and only one thing - RELATIVE RETURN VS THE MARKET

    Most inherited money STAYS OUT OF VC funds. VC money typically comes from active investors who are looking to build their own wealth.

    Really it does? _DSC4289-01. DSC_5936 copy.

    Sorry, "blue" as a descriptor for the sky is not universal but specific to certain circumstances. Similarly you have made statements that may be true in narrow circumstances but are not true generally.

    No it does not. It is not a "penalty" to tax folks in a way that the "pain" ie the "adverse impact preceived" is equal. That's not a penalty of any sort.

    And we know what that point is. 90% marginal tax rates.
     
  15. Woolleybugger

    Woolleybugger Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,614
    Likes Received:
    483
    The reason to belong to any group is enlightened self-interest. It is a bargain between individuals that if the rules are fair and known, the outcomes will also be fair. Once this game gets rigged one way or the other, the masses who lose will no longer tolerate it. From time immemorial, those in power knew that their hold on power was tied to making sure the mob was satisfied. The mob in our world is everyone who is not in the top 10% of income. A system will not survive massive redistribution upward without some form of reform. Progressive taxes are the most common form of equaling outcomes. It is time to return to an era where the most still care about the least. If the least get too mad, the ones with the most will end up hanging or on a guillotine. Our current system of massive personal debt and massively unequal distributions of wealth without any measure of redistribution cannot be sustainable. Ask yourself how our nation can improve upon our fates when something like 40% of the full time employees earn 10 dollars an hour or less. I was making more than that in the late 70s in a grocery store. Sorry Trap but history proves you wrong. Misery is not sustainable as an ideology. You cannot get folks to join a losing team every year.
     
  16. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    This is what Teddy Roosevelt called a Fair Deal and what FDR renamed as the New Deal. Now, admittedly, Paul Ryan calls his vision the "opportunity society" but the opportunity society seems to be a casino in which the opportunities are rigged to favor the oligarchs (i.e. the private sector elite).

    trap said above said that J.P. Morgan (and John D. Rockefellar, and Andrew Mellon) did not destory democracy or the United States. And I would agree that each of them provided some benefits to the United States. The problem was the possibility of them amassing unchecked/unregulated power. What trap won't admit is that FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama and the SCOUTS since 1937 have not "destroyed" the U.S. either and have - in fact - done much good. Now, he will claim that the Federal government is unchecked and power hungry relative to the private oligarchs. He is entitled to his opinion. I think that trap is wrong on that score.

     
  17. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Oh bullsh!t. You yourself have pointed out that for example Obama's daughters have far more opportunity than you ever did, simply by accident of birth. That's hardly "believing in Meritocracy". And given that there is much less opportunity for economic mobility in the USA than say in Europe, the evidence on the ground for this is hardly there.

    You make the mistake of conflating "success" with "wealth" the two are not the same.

    Except it isn't. Not unless regulated with that goal. Without regulating for a Bell curve distribution Capital allocation in pure "market capitalism" quickly devolves to an assymptotic distribution.

    And no one is suggesting that.

    That is EXACTLY what lower tax rates and fewer regulations have already done The USA has LESS INCOME MOBILITY THAN THE EU.

    Then ALL Society is "servitude" because Wealth Redistribution is one of the fundamental basis for society. Secondly, since the USA does not force anyone to remain a citizen, there is no "forcing" occuring.

    For all practical purposes it has. Basically up through the early 1900s. And it resulted in a very slow growing economy despite vast tracts of resource wealth.
     
  18. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  19. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     
  20. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
     

Share This Page