Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Uniquack wrote:
I'd like to see a one-time super-wealthy tax. No one should be able to accumulate a billion dollars, let alone more than, say, $25 million. The marginal utility after that is minor and it allows individuals to distort the democracy. A one time super-wealth tax would redistribute a dangerously lopsided society and could pay for the infrastructure changes we need to prepare for peak oil. It could also be used to pay off much of our debts. Just an idea.
Interesting idea, but not original. Check out this speech by Huey Long, governor of Louisiana and later senator, in the 1930's at American Rhetoric
The key point:
"1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one person shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth, we would not impose any tax. We would say, “All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us.” So we would not levy and capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns, we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent ; and on all over the eight million we would impose a tax of 100 percent."
Oh, by the way, you want to hope you don't end up like Huey did. Seems he pissed off the wrong people.
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 791 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Denny wrote:
Uniquack wrote:
I'd like to see a one-time super-wealthy tax. No one should be able to accumulate a billion dollars, let alone more than, say, $25 million. The marginal utility after that is minor and it allows individuals to distort the democracy. A one time super-wealth tax would redistribute a dangerously lopsided society and could pay for the infrastructure changes we need to prepare for peak oil. It could also be used to pay off much of our debts. Just an idea.
Interesting idea, but not original. Check out this speech by Huey Long, governor of Louisiana and later senator, in the 1930's at American Rhetoric
The key point:
"1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one person shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth, we would not impose any tax. We would say, “All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us.” So we would not levy and capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns, we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent ; and on all over the eight million we would impose a tax of 100 percent."
Oh, by the way, you want to hope you don't end up like Huey did. Seems he pissed off the wrong people.
Yay!! Someone else on here knows about my fave hero Huey Long. (Takes a moment to pay my respects...)
Had Huey Long not been shot dead, I honestly think that man would have made America into a true Utopia...I really do. He's about as close to the Second Coming as any mortal man has ever reached in the modern era. Will we have another chance?
Sure do hope so, if humanity is to survive past the next century or two. _________________ Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 391 Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Nothing wrong with a capital tax either. We pay 1.2% of that here. We do have one of the lowest rates of inflation though, so all in all I'm not paying anything more than the average American. Even I pay it and I'm not a millionaire, so the limit of when you start paying is pretty low.
100% capital tax is a bit too much though.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4720 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
HUEY LONG? Wow.
The minute you start talking about a wealth confiscation tax, the rich will move themselves and their money out of this country, forever. No one would ever invest here again. Good luck running a country without capital or access to it.
Those foolish enough to stick around will learn their lesson and leave with whatever money you have allowed them to keep.
It's one thing to occasionally steal a cow's milk. It is quite another to eat the cow for dinner and still expect milk on a regular basis. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
to: Byron100
If you don't mind me asking what is your source of income?
You seem to be content to imagine a world where rich people lose their billions.
I can only assume you must of found a way to make your money without having to rely on rich people right?
It would be foolish to advocate the destruction of something that you rely on.
Wouldn't you agree? _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 791 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Tyler_JC wrote:
HUEY LONG? Wow.
The minute you start talking about a wealth confiscation tax, the rich will move themselves and their money out of this country, forever. No one would ever invest here again. Good luck running a country without capital or access to it.
Those foolish enough to stick around will learn their lesson and leave with whatever money you have allowed them to keep.
It's one thing to occasionally steal a cow's milk. It is quite another to eat the cow for dinner and still expect milk on a regular basis.
That's why we would need to establish a worldwide framework for this kind of capital taxation...any country that wants to participate in the global trading game has to sign on. No place to run, no place to hide, indeed.
Of course, the super-rich could always take their cash and set up a Rand-like utopia on Mars or someplace and trade gold bullion amongst themselves...if they wanna do that, that's fine by me. They'd be happier and I'd be happier.
In answering Cube's question, my income comes from a variety of sources, I suppose some of it comes from wealthy folk, but I'm sure some comes from middle-class folk like me too. But then again, I really don't know, but I do think that a rich man's dollar is no more green than the dollar of your average Joe. So if all the "average Joes" out there have a more money to spend than before, then that should compensate for the lack of rich people out there.
But the point I want to emphasize, is that when the sh*t goes down, all the old rules go out the window. Every person with any kind of wealth is going to be as tight-fisted as Mr. Scrooge himself, putting vast amounts of wealth out of reach of the rest of us. And when that happens (probably 5 to 7 years hence), the ONLY way to have any sort of working economy is one operated by the people, for the people. What the "people" need to start doing now is to make sure they have a government that serves *them,* as opposed to the big, fat corporate pigs that run the show these days. _________________ Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Byron100 wrote:
That's why we would need to establish a worldwide framework for this kind of capital taxation...any country that wants to participate in the global trading game has to sign on. No place to run, no place to hide, indeed.
never going to happen
Byron100 wrote:
Of course, the super-rich could always take their cash and set up a Rand-like utopia on Mars or someplace and trade gold bullion amongst themselves...if they wanna do that, that's fine by me. They'd be happier and I'd be happier.
Unlike 100 years ago, the super rich today often have their money in "paper assets" which can be moved around easy as pie instead of "hard assets" which are literally bolted down to the ground like railroads, factories, and steel mills.
There are plenty of small tax haven states on this planet that will gladly sell citizenship status to anybody so long as you're rich.
The Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged" scenario is literally happening right now as we speak.
be careful for what you ask for.... _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
cube wrote:
to: Byron100
I can only assume you must of found a way to make your money without having to rely on rich people right?
It would be foolish to advocate the destruction of something that you rely on.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah!! LIke the former CEO of Fanny Mae who exited with a multi million dollar golden parachute.
Americans fall for your kind of "logic" on a regular basis. Because the wealthy upwardly mobile don't have enough true fear of a Huey Long solution, they go overboard, eventually devolving into a criminal syndicate. What Americans need is an ideologically flexible system, where capitalists fear capital controls, enough to alter their behaviour.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong, at this point with instituting a huge tax on the FIRE oligarchs, to help restore the economy to equilibrium, after the massive distortion they are DIRECTLY responsible for. It would be like the drug search and seizure laws. The govt should penalize those who have profited from criminal behaviour by seizing the proceeds of their crimes. The fact that the newly minted billionaires at the very top, have escaped criminal prosecution is a very black mark against, not just the USA, but most developed nations, imho. It shows a slide, a devolution towards a fascist state.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
threadbear wrote:
...
Americans fall for your kind of "logic" on a regular basis. Because the wealthy upwardly mobile don't have enough true fear of a Huey Long solution, they go overboard, eventually devolving into a criminal syndicate. What Americans need is an ideologically flexible system, where capitalists fear capital controls, enough to alter their behaviour.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong, at this point with instituting a huge tax on the FIRE oligarchs, to help restore the economy to equilibrium, after the massive distortion they are DIRECTLY responsible for. It would be like the drug search and seizure laws. The govt should penalize those who have profited from criminal behaviour by seizing the proceeds of their crimes. The fact that the newly minted billionaires at the very top, have escaped criminal prosecution is a very black mark against, not just the USA, but most developed nations, imho. It shows a slide, a devolution towards a fascist state.
Glad to see that you've decided to join the discussion threadbear.
Tell me more about this "solution" you are advocating.
Did I hear you correctly, are you trying to say there should be a legal limit to how much money a person should be allowed to amass?
// addon:
no offense but
If you're trying to attach all the mishaps that's going on in the financial markets right now to the "cube scenario" then I'd have to call that a strawman. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Cube:
There should be internal self regulations by corporations that would automatically limit the amount of money an individual CAN amass. The share holders of a corporation should all have EQUAL voting rights, regardless of how many shares they hold. Employees should all be afforded one vote and upon hiring, should hold at least one share in the corporation. This would automatically limit the amount of money accruing at the top, as well as check the excesses the board can reward itself.
A private corporation wanting to have the benefits of a public corporation, would not have the choice of returning the corporation to private status, to dodge the law. A corporation outsourcing most of it's work to independent contractors to dodge the democratizing effects of this new policy would be taxed as an individual, as would a private corporation. Public corporations, operating within the law, would be taxed a maximum of 5%.
It could be done without a Huey Long type tax, and that would be the best way to institute it. It could be done along the lines of an incentive rather than a penalty. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head,fwiw.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
Tyler_JC wrote:
HUEY LONG? Wow.
The minute you start talking about a wealth confiscation tax, the rich will move themselves and their money out of this country, forever. No one would ever invest here again. Good luck running a country without capital or access to it.
Those foolish enough to stick around will learn their lesson and leave with whatever money you have allowed them to keep.
It's one thing to occasionally steal a cow's milk. It is quite another to eat the cow for dinner and still expect milk on a regular basis.
oh yeah? just try and leave....
Quote:
You'll Pay If You Give Up U.S. Citizenship
The Street.com ^ | 06.29.2008 | Terry Savage
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:41:06 PM by Coffee200am
A lot of people probably can't understand why someone would voluntarily give up American citizenship -- but if someone wanted to do that, they'd now incur financial penalties for it.
Congress just passed a new law that will stop your capital -- or at least a good portion of it -- at the border, should you decide not to be a U.S. citizen anymore. Is it, perhaps, in preparation for the possibility that Americans might rebel at the debt and taxes incurred by their government by leaving for lower-tax locales?
You probably didn't notice this little provision inserted into the Heroes Act of 2008, passed by Congress on June 17. The headlines in the press release about the law were about the increased benefits for veterans and families of deceased military.
But Richard Kohan of Price WaterhouseCoopers drew my attention to one section of the act, which states that anyone voluntarily giving up his or her citizenship will be taxed on all of his assets as if he or she had sold them -- paying capital gains on assets that have increased in value, even though they have not been sold.
That's right. While everyone in the media is focused on keeping aliens out of America, Congress has voted to lock its citizens - or at least a good portion of their assets -- into America! Maybe they're thinking that patriotism won't be enough to keep the smart money from recognizing the coming increases in the tax burden.
Patriotism and Debt
We expect our elected leaders to be patriotic, to wear flap pins on their lapels? But how patriotic is it for our elected officials of both parties to drag our country into debt?
This year the Federal budget deficit will be a record $400 billion. That astonishing number will be added to our existing $9 trillion national debt. It's money that our government spends in excess of what it collects in taxes.
Government officials say they're shocked at the record number of American consumers who are filing for bankruptcy. Yet those same politicians are spending America into an effective bankruptcy -- building a burden of current debt and promises of future debt that can never be repaid. Now, how patriotic is that?
Patriotism and Taxes
Do you consider it your patriotic duty to pay your taxes? Do you feel unpatriotic because you spend some time trying to figure out how to reduce your tax burden, by maximizing deductions whenever possible?
If that's not unpatriotic for you, is it unpatriotic for wealthy people, or corporations, to try to reduce their tax burden? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps it's most unpatriotic for our elected officials to construct a tax system that doles out benefits to special interest groups, pitting one group of Americans against another.
What's really unpatriotic, in my opinion, is trying to divide Americans through the politics of envy. Our country has moved forward because of our optimism and our belief that any American can build a better financial future. It has been our nature to honor those who have been successful, and seek to emulate them, not to destroy them because they have more assets or income.
Of course, that presupposes that the successful people accept their patriotic responsibility to give back to the society that made their success possible. And the facts show that Americans are the most charitable and generous people on the planet.
Think of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, literally giving away their fortunes to help humanity. Or think of the people who filled sandbags along the Mississippi this month to save the homes of strangers.
When a government encourages the best in its citizens, by its policies and its example, patriotic citizens rise to the occasion. And when a government burdens its citizens, it inspires dissent and departures.
The Beatles famously left Britain, and Bjorn Borg left Sweden, when their governments raised taxes to such high levels that even these national icons departed. Are American lawmakers preparing for that kind of scenario with this new law?
Now in America, you can love it, or leave it -- but you can't take it all with you. And that's the Savage Truth!
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
threadbear wrote:
Cube:
There should be internal self regulations by corporations that would automatically limit the amount of money an individual CAN amass. The share holders of a corporation should all have EQUAL voting rights, regardless of how many shares they hold. Employees should all be afforded one vote and upon hiring, should hold at least one share in the corporation. This would automatically limit the amount of money accruing at the top, as well as check the excesses the board can reward itself.
A private corporation wanting to have the benefits of a public corporation, would not have the choice of returning the corporation to private status, to dodge the law. A corporation outsourcing most of it's work to independent contractors to dodge the democratizing effects of this new policy would be taxed as an individual, as would a private corporation. Public corporations, operating within the law, would be taxed a maximum of 5%.
It could be done without a Huey Long type tax, and that would be the best way to institute it. It could be done along the lines of an incentive rather than a penalty. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head,fwiw.
That would be an interesting experiment to play on society.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
mattduke wrote:
threadbear wrote:
Cube:
There should be internal self regulations by corporations that would automatically limit the amount of money an individual CAN amass. The share holders of a corporation should all have EQUAL voting rights, regardless of how many shares they hold. Employees should all be afforded one vote and upon hiring, should hold at least one share in the corporation. This would automatically limit the amount of money accruing at the top, as well as check the excesses the board can reward itself.
A private corporation wanting to have the benefits of a public corporation, would not have the choice of returning the corporation to private status, to dodge the law. A corporation outsourcing most of it's work to independent contractors to dodge the democratizing effects of this new policy would be taxed as an individual, as would a private corporation. Public corporations, operating within the law, would be taxed a maximum of 5%.
It could be done without a Huey Long type tax, and that would be the best way to institute it. It could be done along the lines of an incentive rather than a penalty. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head,fwiw.
That would be an interesting experiment to play on society.
If I'm interpreting this correctly it seems that Threadbear is trying to turn a corporation into a Democracy.
I'm a firm believer in freedom but I'm also a firm believer some things just weren't meant to be Democracies.
It must be managed by an authoritarian dictatorship.
A kitchen and a ship are fine examples.
1) A ship can have only one captain.
2) Too many cooks spoil the soup. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
cube wrote:
mattduke wrote:
threadbear wrote:
Cube:
There should be internal self regulations by corporations that would automatically limit the amount of money an individual CAN amass. The share holders of a corporation should all have EQUAL voting rights, regardless of how many shares they hold. Employees should all be afforded one vote and upon hiring, should hold at least one share in the corporation. This would automatically limit the amount of money accruing at the top, as well as check the excesses the board can reward itself.
A private corporation wanting to have the benefits of a public corporation, would not have the choice of returning the corporation to private status, to dodge the law. A corporation outsourcing most of it's work to independent contractors to dodge the democratizing effects of this new policy would be taxed as an individual, as would a private corporation. Public corporations, operating within the law, would be taxed a maximum of 5%.
It could be done without a Huey Long type tax, and that would be the best way to institute it. It could be done along the lines of an incentive rather than a penalty. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head,fwiw.
That would be an interesting experiment to play on society.
If I'm interpreting this correctly it seems that Threadbear is trying to turn a corporation into a Democracy.
I'm a firm believer in freedom but I'm also a firm believer some things just weren't meant to be Democracies.
It must be managed by an authoritarian dictatorship.
A kitchen and a ship are fine examples.
1) A ship can have only one captain.
2) Too many cooks spoil the soup.
1) who can be elected by the crew.
2) unless your cook is skiming the best of it off the top and feeding you the dregs--kinda like my ex-wife.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist: America may default on it's debt
I wonder, if individuals do not appreciate being your guinea pig, will you erect a concrete and barbed wire wall to prevent them from escaping your control?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
