How to fix the economy

[Hermod]

So you want to give further encouragement for people to make money by sitting on their asses. How, pray tell, does that help the economy???

Who needs to make stuff when you can just manipulate numbers, sit on your butt, and collect a fat paycheck for doing nothing? Yet we wonder why everything seems to be made in China.

Smack my damned head.

You do need to be smacked up along side the head.

You have bought into the Marxist idea that "only labor has economic value".

If you live in a rental house, your landlord just sits on his ass and collects the rent. What he is doing has "economic value' because you are willing to shell out a monthly check for the privilege of living in his house.

Stuff is made in China because there is a labor cost imbalance between China and the US. This can be cured in one of three ways:

1. US workers are more efficient than Chinese workers so that their higher cost is matched by their greater productivity.

2. US workers accept the same pay as Chinese workers.

3. US levies an import tax or duty on Chinese product imports at a "labor equalization" rate.

I don't think that the first one s doable any longer. The second is politically unacceptable [[though we seem to be heading there by default). The last violates the "progressive" desires for free trade and will send up prices for every single thing we buy. Choose your poison.

[JBMcB]

I don't think you should eliminate capital gains

I wasn't talking about eliminating capital gains [[nor was the show) but shifting the tax burden *from* corporate profits *to* capital gains.

I think that short term capital gains [[traders) should be taxed at a very high rate on the gains, but if you hold on to a stock for say ten years, there should be no tax on the capital gains.

No need to be that fancy. Tax the heck out of the gains incurred by the increased price of stock sold, and put a *very* low tax [[or none) on dividends. This encourages long-term planning for profits on the part of the company, and encourages investors to only invest in companies that plan on longer-term profits over short-term gimmicks.

[rb336]

You do need to be smacked up along side the head.

You have bought into the Marxist idea that "only labor has economic value".

blah blah blah, more misc. stupidity, blah blah blah

here is what that republican stalwart has to say:

"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labor, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labor has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world that some have labored, and others have, without labor, enjoyed a large portion of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue. To [secure] to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."​ Abraham Lincoln

[ghettopalmetto]

You do need to be smacked up along side the head.

You have bought into the Marxist idea that "only labor has economic value".

If you live in a rental house, your landlord just sits on his ass and collects the rent. What he is doing has "economic value' because you are willing to shell out a monthly check for the privilege of living in his house.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Rental income is not taxed as capital gains. That inconvenient fact notwithstanding, my landlord has to invest money in the physical plant, make sure the taxes are paid, and cover the utility bills. There is a certain amount of effort involved. And without my labor [[and that of my fellow tenants) there is no money to give to the landlord in the first place. Renting the property has economic value only because tenants, through their own labor, earn an income to pay rent.

Yes, labor is essential to an economy. That's not a Marxist idea--that's a mathematical idea. Do you think we can all sell stocks or homes to each other, and manage to have a functioning economy?

Since you seem a bit confused as to what constitutes "capital gains", the IRS defines it as the appreciation in price of an asset during the time it is held. In other words--sitting on an asset and doing not a damned thing with it, waiting for the price to rise. This non-activity we tax at lower rates than earned income.

[Hermod]

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Rental income is not taxed as capital gains.

And what are you talking about.

I made two different posts. One was in reply to you bewailing people "sitting on their ass" and collecting money. My reply to you had absolutely nothing to do with capital gains. The second was to JBMcB on his post wanting to tax capital gains at a higher rate.

Read and reply to one at a time!

What my reply to you had to do with the aspect of people making money "sitting on their ass".

Yes, you supposedly make money by your labor [[my assumption from your reply). Labor has value otherwise people wouldn't pay you for renting it. Obviously Prince Fielder's labor is far more valuable than yours.

Your landlord pays the taxes on your dwelling and may or may not pay some or all of the utilities [[depending on your lease). He also has to hire a handyman when something needs to be fixed [[hopefully your landlord keeps the place up). Other than stroking the checks, he does no "labor". Your monthly check to him is not in payment for his labor. You are not renting his labor, you are renting his capital.

There seems to be a strong feeling in here that renting out your capital is somehow theft.

[Papasito]

"Under my plan, households who make under $250,000 a year will not pay any more taxes"


Wrong.
http://money.msn.com/politics/post.a...9-c2599c5ff17d

Alternative Minimum Tax – First introduced in 1969 to ensure wealthier Americans paid a fair rate, this catchall quickly became outdated because it was never pegged to inflation. Unless Congress patches up the AMT as it has before, married couples earning $80,000 a year would get socked come April 15th

Payroll Tax Holiday – A typical family took home an additional $1,000 a year because of the reduced rates on the payroll tax, but this two-year old effort to stimulate the economy with revenues meant for Social Security is set to vanish in 2013. Without that additional $40 a month, Americans would be earning about the same amount of money as they did in the middle of 2009.


Extended Unemployment – Frustrated jobseekers who currently receive more than 70 weeks of unemployment benefits—at a $30 billion annual expense for taxpayers— would return to getting just 26 weeks of payments. But any money the government could save might easily disappear as more Americans seek welfare.

Tip #1 when listening to Campaign speeches and mainstream media - Don't take what you hear as the truth. Do your own research.

No matter who wins this election, Americans will be paying more and getting less.

[rb336]

all those things you point out are not under Obama's plan, they are due to republican obstruction. plain as the nose on your face

[Papasito]

OK Rb, let's say the Republicans don't obstruct, and Democrats DOUBLE taxes on the so called "rich". Will that fix everything?
I think not.
I think no matter how much the Government taxes,
it will spend double what it takes in.
The beast is out of control.
We are feeding a pig that can't stop itself.

[firstandten]

OK Rb, let's say the Republicans don't obstruct, and Democrats DOUBLE taxes on the so called "rich". Will that fix everything?
I think not.
I think no matter how much the Government taxes,
it will spend double what it takes in.
The beast is out of control.
We are feeding a pig that can't stop itself.

What makes you think that is the case, show me something that proves the bolded statement.

[rb336]

No, it won't solve everything. Military spending needs to be slashed - it is currently 56% of the discretionary budget. in the bush years, discretionary non-military spending increased 21%, military by 71%. It is by far the largest item in the general fund. We outspend the rest of the developed world combined. We spend double what China and the whole of Europe combined spend. We spend almost 6 times what China spends. The military is the beast that is out of control, and the pig that can't stop itself. This is exactly what Ike warned us about.

but beyond having the people who control the vast majority of the wealth in this country pay an equivalent tax to support the system that allowed them to become rich

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. Thomas Paine - Agrarian Justice

the tax code needs to promote creating jobs in the US, rather than giving a 20% tax benefit for offshoring jobs. Capital gains taxes need to be structured to promote long-term investing instead of the current high-stakes gambling that it now promotes. Education, including college, and health care need to be funded completely

[TKshreve]

No, it won't solve everything. Military spending needs to be slashed - it is currently 56% of the discretionary budget. in the bush years, discretionary non-military spending increased 21%, military by 71%. It is by far the largest item in the general fund. We outspend the rest of the developed world combined. We spend double what China and the whole of Europe combined spend. We spend almost 6 times what China spends. The military is the beast that is out of control, and the pig that can't stop itself. This is exactly what Ike warned us about.

but beyond having the people who control the vast majority of the wealth in this country pay an equivalent tax to support the system that allowed them to become rich
[/FONT][/COLOR]

the tax code needs to promote creating jobs in the US, rather than giving a 20% tax benefit for offshoring jobs. Capital gains taxes need to be structured to promote long-term investing instead of the current high-stakes gambling that it now promotes. Education, including college, and health care need to be funded completely

Basically, we need to look at a trickle up approach. If we can produce stable, decent paying jobs it will increase the tax base [[which the right so often forgets) and allow the middle class to consume more goods [[which again feeds tax revenue).

Interesting point I read somewhere else:

I sure hope someone attacks the Paul Ryan budget and points out we can fork out $13 Trillion for the bankers, spend more on the military than all other countries combined, let earnings for the top 5% increase by 267%, and have a $16 Trillion deficit from the Bush Tax cuts but all Ryan wants to cut is Social Security and Medicare.

Kinda points directly where the Conservatives priorities lie.

[old guy]

A good start might be to take the 2.5 billion dollars we just spent to put a camera on Mars and put some people back to work rebuilding the infrastructure in this country. Not a save all, but let's get realistic at some point.

[rb336]

Basically, we need to look at a trickle up approach. If we can produce stable, decent paying jobs it will increase the tax base [[which the right so often forgets) and allow the middle class to consume more goods [[which again feeds tax revenue).

Our entire economy is based on consumption. Increased Consumption+tax incentives for increasing US payrolls= more jobs = Increased Consumption+tax incentives for increasing US payrolls= more jobs Increased Consumption+tax incentives for increasing US payrolls= more jobs...

As much as I love the gee-whiz science of Curiosity, I agree that the money would be better spent on roads, transit, water systems, low-cost high speed internet, etc. We need to bring our infrastructure up to current standards or we will get left in the dirt. In economic terms, he who has the best infrastructure wins. every time

[oladub]

A good start might be to take the 2.5 billion dollars we just spent to put a camera on Mars and put some people back to work rebuilding the infrastructure in this country. Not a save all, but let's get realistic at some point.

old guy, Our declining space program has, at least, paid it's bills with new technology, saved crops, and created spin of industries and savings. It is small compared with our military budget but yet plays a role in defending this country. It is also a part of our present and future infrastructure. The eventual colonizing of other planets also seems like an inevitability and necessity for the human race. It is a good idea for the USA to participate toward that end.

For all his virtues, I haven't quite forgiven Martin Luther King for similarly throwing cold water on the space program for reasons mentioned above and despite 10% of all unionized aero-space workers being black. The space program produced a lot of those "stable, decent paying jobs" thus increasing the tax base.

[old guy]

I'm not against the space program and I actually find the Curiosity program interesting. But if we don't start dealing with the infrastructure on this planet pretty soon I'm afraid the space program is going to be a moot point.

[Jimaz]

Nobel Economist Stiglitz: Wealth Gap Causes All of America's Woes

The financial crisis really made this easy to understand. Inequality has always been justified on the grounds that those at the top contributed more to the economy — "the job creators."

Then came 2008 and 2009, and you saw these guys who brought the economy to the brink of ruin walking off with hundreds of millions of dollars. And you couldn't justify that in terms of contribution to society.

The myth had been sold to people, and all of a sudden it was apparent to everybody that it was a lie.

Mitt Romney has called concerns about inequality the "politics of envy." Well, that's wrong. Envy would be saying, "He's doing so much better than me. I'm jealous." This is: "Why is he getting so much money, and he brought us to the brink of ruin?" And those who worked hard are the ones ruined. It's a question of fairness.

[TKshreve]

The financial crisis really made this easy to understand. Inequality has always been justified on the grounds that those at the top contributed more to the economy — "the job creators."

Regarding added value to the economy; what has become of Wall Street? They no longer make their salary by helping investors and homeowners, but in reality it has become the exact opposite.

I see it as an industry that allowed a smaller market to burgeon within its borders. A market without control or regulation. It was fabricated by the workers who sought exorbitant gains for less and less input. Not only did they not have to follow the rules, but they made them up as they went. The encrypted their processes to lengthen their tenure. And they shrug and say "Whaddaya gonna do...... forget about it!" now that the damage is done. Yet the suffering continues. We are approaching a fulcrum of haves and have-nots.

And upon discovering yesterday that the Government will not be federally pursuing Goldman Sachs [[which would have been the first), it just proves that there is no one left to fight for the public. This corporate oligarchy will continue to push society again and again until something pops and we have all out chaos in the streets. I don't think that is so far fetched.

[rb336]

Regarding added value to the economy; what has become of Wall Street? They no longer make their salary by helping investors and homeowners, but in reality it has become the exact opposite.

I don't think they were ever making their money by helping homeowners. Wall Street, hedge funds, insurance, etc. are value subtractive pursuits - they earn their money by pulling value OUT of the market, whereas an autoworker ads the value of his labor to the market. I think we need a VST - tax them on the value they subtract from the market and add to their own pockets.

And upon discovering yesterday that the Government will not be federally pursuing Goldman Sachs [[which would have been the first), it just proves that there is no one left to fight for the public. This corporate oligarchy will continue to push society again and again until something pops and we have all out chaos in the streets. I don't think that is so far fetched.

no, it's not. The only difference between parties is, for the most part, lip service about social ideas. The largest "third party" operates under the delusion that ceding any government control of anything other than military and police would result in a more free, open and just society, a belief that is nice, just as it is nice to believe that we enter life on an even playing field. Unfortunately, there are more facts to back up the idea that serving kids marshmallows for breakfast is OK than to back up their ideology. Their policies would only cement the control of the corporations over every aspect of our lives, and with no hope of any accountability.