Political discussions about everything
By elklindo69
#21015
Roughly 75% of America's wealthy are spending just as freely as they were before the fiscal cliff, a new survey finds.

Please tell us again how increasing taxes on the wealthy will completely bulldoze the economy and crush conspicuous spending. We couldn't hear you the first time over all the card swiping and receipt printing.

Before the New Year and the fiscal cliff debate, wealthy Americans not named Warren Buffett and their non-wealthy free-market advocates warned that taxing the rich would halt economic recovery and send the well-heeled packing their bags for greener pastures. On Wednesday, however, CNBC uncovered a survey that not only called that argument scatological, but found that taxes haven't affected spending by the majority of wealthy Americans in the slightest.

The Shullman Luxury and Affluence Monthly Pulse found that 55% of people making $500,000 or more said higher taxes have not impacted their spending plans. Lower that income bar to those making $250,000 a year -- the group President Barack Obama initially wanted to raise taxes on before Republican opponents haggled the new individual threshold for income tax hikes up to $400,000 -- and a full 61% said taxes have not dented their spending plans.

But wait, that must just mean they're not saving as much, right? No. Fifty-nine percent of those making $500,000 or more and 64% of the $250,000-plus earners said higher taxes haven't changed their investment strategies. Maybe they're throttling back their charitable offerings? That supposes that the rich aren't terrible at donating to charity in the first place, but the survey humored them a bit and found that 55% of the $500,000-or-more club and 62% of their $250,000-a-year counterparts weren't going to let taxes affect their giving.

But those aren't overwhelming majorities, so someone must be feeling the pinch, right? Not as many as you'd think. Less than a quarter of high-wage earners said they'd reduce spending as a result of taxes.

So what happened to all that pre-election, pre-cliff bluster about the rich not feeling rich anymore and being persecuted by looming tax hikes? Well, as a sporting goods company with dubious sponsorship partners so inelegantly stated, “winning takes care of everything.” Though about a third of those making $250,000 are pessimistic about the economy, another third are very optimistic about the economy. Among those numbers, those who own businesses are way more optimistic than those who don't.

The rich appreciate all the support through those trying fiscal cliff days but, if you'll excuse them, they have a few more things to shop for before they'll have time for you again.
#21144
I would like to see a system where the more taxes a person pays, the more Government services you receive. Maybe color coded ID's based upon your tax bracket, those in the higher brackets receive priority services.

It's currently ass backwards, the less taxes you pay the "more" services you receive, then the greedy bastards complain that the ones who are paying 100 times more in taxes than they are, aren't paying their fair share. :roll:
#21184
I would like to see a system where the more taxes a person pays, the more Government services you receive. Maybe color coded ID's based upon your tax bracket, those in the higher brackets receive priority services.

It's currently ass backwards, the less taxes you pay the "more" services you receive, then the greedy bastards complain that the ones who are paying 100 times more in taxes than they are, aren't paying their fair share
Color coded ID cards based upon how much taxes people pay? That's about as racist as you can get, what color card are you going make to the ones paying the least amount of taxes BLACK so they sit in the back of the bus? The ones who need the help should be getting it not, the rich.
By Leroy
#21185
Freedman wrote:Color coded ID cards based upon how much taxes people pay? That's about as racist as you can get, what color card are you going make to the ones paying the least amount of taxes BLACK so they sit in the back of the bus? The ones who need the help should be getting it not, the rich.

Interesting the Dildo/Freedman believes that Blacks must be poor, that they can't stand on their own two feet.

Strange, I know wealthy and successful blacks, even hispanics, and they own and run businesses, but, you would discount them because they don't believe in public assistance, they don't register as democraps, they are not liberals....

Maybe you should ask yourself why blacks believe blacks are held back by the MAN and what they, blacks, can do about it - so far all I hear from racists like Dildo/Freedman is that the white man must pay!
#21262
Republicans were belly aching that higher taxes would slow down economic growth. And it hasn't happened. They fought tooth and nail to keep the rates low for the wealthy but seemed to ignore the fact that the payroll tax for the working stiffs increased...

Seems that the trickle down theory gets blown out of the water again...
By Leroy
#21302
elklindo69 wrote:Republicans were belly aching that higher taxes would slow down economic growth. And it hasn't happened. They fought tooth and nail to keep the rates low for the wealthy but seemed to ignore the fact that the payroll tax for the working stiffs increased...

Seems that the trickle down theory gets blown out of the water again...
Maybe you should look at the History of what has been happening before you look at a small window?

You can't talk about the Rich and expand that to the Economy, when you're talking about individuals.

You also have to look at how Businesses have been holding back, waiting to see what would happen in the 2012 election, hoping for freedom to prevail, but, since communism/liberalism won, they have no real choice but to restart investing in their businesses and take the hit on taxes and other things.

Why do you think that Al Gore sold his TV station to the terrorists just before the end of 2012 - it was so that he would not have to pay the additional taxes... (and he's supposed to be on your side).

The fact is that most businesses were holding back, but they can't wait any longer, so they are spending and paying the penalty for Obama being re-elected. That's what is driving the economic indicators to a false good report. Once those companies stop their short period of investment the indicators will drop again.
#21369
Leroy wrote:
elklindo69 wrote:Republicans were belly aching that higher taxes would slow down economic growth. And it hasn't happened. They fought tooth and nail to keep the rates low for the wealthy but seemed to ignore the fact that the payroll tax for the working stiffs increased...

Seems that the trickle down theory gets blown out of the water again...
Maybe you should look at the History of what has been happening before you look at a small window?

You can't talk about the Rich and expand that to the Economy, when you're talking about individuals.

You also have to look at how Businesses have been holding back, waiting to see what would happen in the 2012 election, hoping for freedom to prevail, but, since communism/liberalism won, they have no real choice but to restart investing in their businesses and take the hit on taxes and other things.

Why do you think that Al Gore sold his TV station to the terrorists just before the end of 2012 - it was so that he would not have to pay the additional taxes... (and he's supposed to be on your side).

The fact is that most businesses were holding back, but they can't wait any longer, so they are spending and paying the penalty for Obama being re-elected. That's what is driving the economic indicators to a false good report. Once those companies stop their short period of investment the indicators will drop again.
Over the long run you'll lose if you bet against the United States economic system. It's been the greatest wealth creator over the 200+ years in existence. Starting in 1900 it was around 50, now 113 years later it's about 14000.

CEO's are whining about taxes because the higher rates will cut into earnings and their pay is linked to earnings. Lower earnings, lower pay, the self interest is quite evident. Why, because the shelf life of CEOs at a fortune 500 company is what? Five years or something?

These guys who worry about uncertainty are not looking at the long term. Because it means nothing to them. They are looking to make a quick buck, cash out, and jump ship....
#21413
As we have seen executive compensation is rigged. If the executives drive the company into failure they still get their bonuses. Carley Fiorina is a prime example. Number 13 worst CEO of all time.

The Bush pension protection acts were all placed there by executives to allow them to raid pension funds and boost earnings and therefor get increased bonuses based on no operational profit at all. Legalized earnings manipulation.
#21418
It's very easy to understand how a CEO making $1 Million a year can become a millionaire without committing a crime but it's beyond me how a politician making 150K a year can become a millionaire without committing a crime.

So why do liberals concentrate "all" their time calling for investigations of CEO's for being rich but continue to vote for obvious corrupt politicians? Democrats in both the House and the Senate have far more millionaires than the Republicans do, one study showed that Democrats in the Senate increase their net worth on average by over 700% in one term...how? Why aren't they in jail? Why pick on the CEO who can show where his fortunes came from but give politicians a free pass?
#21421
The CEO's are the crooks, they take all the money then get away with not paying their share of taxes. Politicians get rich mostly by writing books and investing the profits from the books.
By Leroy
#21438
Freedman wrote:The CEO's are the crooks, they take all the money then get away with not paying their share of taxes. Politicians get rich mostly by writing books and investing the profits from the books.
CEO's pay taxes, how much, as a percentage of their total wealth should they have to pay each year to make you happy?
#21476
Income taxes are on income, not wealth. Wealthy people pay greatly reduced rates on greatly enhanced income, not on the wealth itself. It's not unreasonable to expect people who make more wealth by sitting on their ass and worrying about optimal profits to pay at the same or higher rate than those who actually work for a living and risk their lives and livelihood every day.
#21483
CEO's pay taxes, how much, as a percentage of their total wealth should they have to pay each year to make you happy?
If their average worker brings home 60K after taxes, CEO's should be taxed so they bring home "no more" than triple of their average worker's pay. So in this case anything over 180K should be taken in taxes. I feel that is very, very generous.
By Leroy
#21495
Freedman wrote:
CEO's pay taxes, how much, as a percentage of their total wealth should they have to pay each year to make you happy?
If their average worker brings home 60K after taxes, CEO's should be taxed so they bring home "no more" than triple of their average worker's pay. So in this case anything over 180K should be taken in taxes. I feel that is very, very generous.
So, you don't believe ANYONE should make $200,000 or more if they own or run a business?

How do you think you're going to get your free internet and cell service if people are limited to $200,000 for owning/running a business?
By Leroy
#21547
Freedman wrote:
So, you don't believe ANYONE should make $200,000 or more if they own or run a business?
You lie, I didn't say that, read what I said again.
OK, so you don't believe a business owner or other persons(s) responsible for the success, design, control, planning, etc... of any business should make more than 3 x the average salary of the employees....

So, the CEO's of Walmart, McDonalds, Most places that employ thousands, should not make more than about $150,000 per year for all of the planning, staging, success of the business.... Seems that you, like most failures, want to take away the reason to create business.
#21566
So, the CEO's of Walmart, McDonalds, Most places that employ thousands, should not make more than about $150,000 per year for all of the planning, staging, success of the business.... Seems that you, like most failures, want to take away the reason to create business.

The CEO doesn't do all the planning, staging and make the success of a big business :lol: :lol: :lol: They have tons of managers that do their work for them. Now maybe a small business owner does some of that stuff but the CEO of a big company is just a figure head.

Also you argue that if the CEO only gets 3 times what his average worker does that's not enough, poor, poor, CEO that's barely enough to feed his family :cry: :cry: :cry:
#21586
Pay for performance is a more appropriate compensation scheme. If they do a good job, then the pay should reflect it. But if they really screw something up, clawback provisions are appropriate.
I'm surprised Elk you agree with with us on Public education accountability and telling Obama he's failed.
#21604
ExxonMobile

$122,000,000.00 per day in profits

AN OCCASIONAL $67,000.00 fine for what should be criminal negligence violationS of safety standards, and perhaps involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.
By Leroy
#21608
Freedman wrote:
So, the CEO's of Walmart, McDonalds, Most places that employ thousands, should not make more than about $150,000 per year for all of the planning, staging, success of the business.... Seems that you, like most failures, want to take away the reason to create business.

The CEO doesn't do all the planning, staging and make the success of a big business :lol: :lol: :lol: They have tons of managers that do their work for them. Now maybe a small business owner does some of that stuff but the CEO of a big company is just a figure head.

Also you argue that if the CEO only gets 3 times what his average worker does that's not enough, poor, poor, CEO that's barely enough to feed his family :cry: :cry: :cry:
Freedman, if there was no real reason to (money) to be a CEO, there would be no reason to take the risk - everyone would just choose to work for a company, leaving no leadership to run it. You're really stupid when it comes to business.
#21640
Leroy wrote:
Freedman wrote:
So, the CEO's of Walmart, McDonalds, Most places that employ thousands, should not make more than about $150,000 per year for all of the planning, staging, success of the business.... Seems that you, like most failures, want to take away the reason to create business.

The CEO doesn't do all the planning, staging and make the success of a big business :lol: :lol: :lol: They have tons of managers that do their work for them. Now maybe a small business owner does some of that stuff but the CEO of a big company is just a figure head.

Also you argue that if the CEO only gets 3 times what his average worker does that's not enough, poor, poor, CEO that's barely enough to feed his family :cry: :cry: :cry:
Freedman, if there was no real reason to (money) to be a CEO, there would be no reason to take the risk - everyone would just choose to work for a company, leaving no leadership to run it. You're really stupid when it comes to business.
There's risk, calculated risk, and pure idiocy.

High quality management teams, such as the ones who run Berkshire Hathaway, make a fortune taking calculated risks.

Bank casino joints on the Hudson River gamble shareholder money away. Heads I win...tails you lose. And CEOs walk out the door making millions while the taxpayers get screwed...
#21728
There is a clear difference in the derivatives and futures markets.

There are the original asset backed derivatives and futures. Derivatives and futures backed by hard assets like stocks, buildings, or crops in a field or copper in a mine. There are in fact only a realtives few of these derivatives and futures.

Then there is the bulk of the derivatives and futures markets. Simple bookmaking, read literal gambling. Since there are no actual assets backing these bets and they exist in huge quantities they will necessarily fluctuate by huge margins. They have always lead to destructive fluctuations in markets. It is a know problem. Such gambling was made illegal and then has been made legal yet again. They always lead to insider skimming and fraudulent manipulation. They also, unfortunately lead to undermining the real assets, derivatives,and futures as they are dishonestly represented as the same thing as good asset backed derivatives and futures. Most of our "financial markets" and "financial institutions" are reality nothing more than casinos falsely represented as finance and investment. There is the essential problem in finance today. Dishonesty, fraud, and insider skimming. All accepted standard "business as usual", and nothing to do with free markets or investment in real assets and productivity, or the real economy. Just a scam to extract money from real people in the real economy.

Is there a bigger cuck piece of shit?

Green Energy

You Clean energy guys shot yourself in the foot, w[…]

Secret Slut

When I was dating my wife I discovered she had an […]

Red state gun murder rate....

So that's when Sparkles was recruited as a traitor[…]

Big Beautiful Ballroom

What a putz. A sparkle pony patriot. Worthless wea[…]

Farewell Tour

Superb thread. When the history of the early days[…]

Exposing wife in phoenix

Any interested voyeurs. We are looking to expose[…]