Tax the Rich!

[BigRob]

Speaking for myself as a liberal, I agree with everything you say. The disagreement is in the details. I am basically distrustful of big business and would want tighter regulations on some businesses than you.
I think the tax code should be simplified, but still be increased and remain progressive. Business should thrive, but not if they are given free run cheat people like Verizon did by putting unauthorized charges.

When I say reduce/eliminate burdensome regulation I don't mean allow companies to freely cheat their customers.

What I mean is regulations like the fact that EPA classifies milk as an oil and therefore subjects dairy producers to the same costly rules that are designed to prevent oil spills. That is simply dumb.

Thankfully President Obama attempted to address this issue, but his proposals are estimated to save businesses a mere $1 billion a year...meanwhile it is estimated that it costs business and industry $1.75 trillion a year to comply with federal regulations...imagine what business could do with even an extra $500 billion in savings per year.

 

[BigRob]

I understand what you are writing. I can even agree, to a point. However, repeating the same action over and over and getting the same result is probably a pretty good indicator that if you repeat it once more, it will probably give the same result once more, even if we do not understand why.

There are similar scenarios that seem counter intuitive, The higher the prime interest rate, the better the economy. Seems wrongheaded, but it is as reliable indicator as you will ever find. Low interest rates = lousy economy, rising interest rates = rising economy. If there is any reason at all for using the financial crisis to drive up interest rates, that might be it.

I think it oversimplifies what is actually going on in an economy at the time. During the Clinton years we watched the internet boom. Returning tax rates to Clinton year levels is not going to recreate the internet boom.

I would say there is far more to the health of an economy than simply the tax rates.

 

[ProudLefty]

I think it oversimplifies what is actually going on in an economy at the time. During the Clinton years we watched the internet boom. Returning tax rates to Clinton year levels is not going to recreate the internet boom.

I would say there is far more to the health of an economy than simply the tax rates.

True. There was the Internet boom.

I would suggest that an even bigger boom is not only possible, but is probable, if we put our minds to it.

Fossil fuels are becoming too expensive. There is a huge unmet demand for reducing the demand for fossil fuels. There are dozens of avenues being explored and most of them, in the end, will fail. But a couple of the ideas will work, and they will create opportunities for millions of us.

I happen to believe that the nation's power grid is antique; not even 20th century stuff. If someone puts the right package together the electric grid will make millions for some entrepreneurs. Then there is the growing demand for wind power; every tower that goes up is hundreds of gallons of oil per year, and tons of coal no longer per year that will never again be needed.

The world is homogenizing, and somewhere in that turmoil there will be even greater opportunities.

We can look backwards and be like old men talking about the glorious olden days, are we can seize the opportunity and move forward. The choice is ours.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

True. There was the Internet boom.

I would suggest that an even bigger boom is not only possible, but is probable, if we put our minds to it.

Internet bubble, you mean.

And we already had an "even bigger" one -- the housing bubble. Bubbles suck; they're distortions in the economy that inflate prices, get a few people rich off the idiocy of everyone else, and inevitably blow up and result in recession.

Why you'd want to induce another one, I have no idea.

 

[Lagboltz]

When I say reduce/eliminate burdensome regulation I don't mean allow companies to freely cheat their customers.

What I mean is regulations like the fact that EPA classifies milk as an oil and therefore subjects dairy producers to the same costly rules that are designed to prevent oil spills. That is simply dumb.

Thankfully President Obama attempted to address this issue, but his proposals are estimated to save businesses a mere $1 billion a year...meanwhile it is estimated that it costs business and industry $1.75 trillion a year to comply with federal regulations...imagine what business could do with even an extra $500 billion in savings per year.

Yes, I agree to eliminate regulations like the ones you cited. I am more concerned with the lack of regulations on wall street which allowed them to sell shaky derivatives and cheat customers; and the lack of enforcement that led to the gulf oil spill and allowed Madoff to get away with what he did.

Getting back to the OP I believe we should have more progressive taxes. You don't. I can find respected economists that agree with me. You can too. We both listen to our own instincts. I am retired and depend on Social Security and I feel empathy for others that have a hard time making ends meet. Some of my friends and neighbors are deeply in that category. Your instincts are to keep your money away from taxes. You probably have a lot more than I do, so that is natural. There you have it. An impasse that is bitterly dividing the country.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, I agree to eliminate regulations like the ones you cited. I am more concerned with the lack of regulations on wall street which allowed them to sell shaky derivatives and cheat customers; and the lack of enforcement that led to the gulf oil spill and allowed Madoff to get away with what he did.

Lack of regulations on Wall Street? Wall Street is one of the most heavily regulated industries there are.

You say lack of regulation allowed banks to cheat customers...that seems bogus. The banks are under regulations not to discriminate, tell you your rate clearly, and you have to sign all of these truth in lending papers...if you don't read them, it is bogus to turn around and then blame the regulations.

As for the shaky derivatives, regulations made it easier to do that. The government pressured banks to make more risky loans, these loans were securitized (by Bear Sterns actually first), and the law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier.

Additionally, off-shore drilling is so heavily regulated it is absurd. The BP disaster was not caused by a lack of regulation.

As for Madoff, he is in jail, and he did not get away with what he did...

Getting back to the OP I believe we should have more progressive taxes. You don't. I can find respected economists that agree with me. You can too. We both listen to our own instincts. I am retired and depend on Social Security and I feel empathy for others that have a hard time making ends meet. Some of my friends and neighbors are deeply in that category. Your instincts are to keep your money away from taxes. You probably have a lot more than I do, so that is natural. There you have it. An impasse that is bitterly dividing the country.

It does appear, and it seems there will never really be a thing we can all agree on.

 

[ProudLefty]

...The BP disaster was not caused by a lack of regulation. ...

I am selecting just one item although my responses would be similar to most of the points you made.

The BP disaster was caused by BP and BP's willingness to constantly push at the edges of regulation and safety. BP's safety record is atrocious and far below most of the industry. The failed blowout preventer is an old design, it is proved extremely unreliable in deep water, and BP knew that. The sad part is that even now, that style of blowout preventer is still the norm.

Decent regulation of the industry would say "It is not OK to kill people with old technology. Fix it. Now. Before you even think of starting another hole."

My bet is that in about 3 weeks they would have the problem resolved and be able to save lives.

So, yeah, good regulation could save laws, but instead we have oil industry hacks being paid to rubber stamp the killing of workers.

That may be OK with many, but it certainly is not OK with me. (Yes. I am biased. My grandfather died because his employer was not required to provide clean air to workers. Getting another immigrant was a lot cheaper than a dust collection system, and we know that making money is all that matters, right?)

 

[Lagboltz]

Lack of regulations on Wall Street? Wall Street is one of the most heavily regulated industries there are.

It was lack of proper regulations that allowed Wall Street to cheat customers by giving shaky derivatives high ratings. If regulations are not enough to prevent that then Wall Street needs better type of regulations, or more regulations.

You say lack of regulation allowed banks to cheat customers...that seems bogus. The banks are under regulations not to discriminate, tell you your rate clearly, and you have to sign all of these truth in lending papers...if you don't read them, it is bogus to turn around and then blame the regulations.

I'm sorry I was not clear. Here I was referring to the heavy investment firms and not the banking business in general.

As for the shaky derivatives, regulations made it easier to do that. The government pressured banks to make more risky loans, these loans were securitized (by Bear Sterns actually first), and the law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier.

I know about FM and FM. That was done by Democrats and that was stupid. One problem is that the government has too many educated in law and not enough educated in macroeconomics.

Additionally, off-shore drilling is so heavily regulated it is absurd. The BP disaster was not caused by a lack of regulation.

Please reread. I said "...lack of enforcement that led to the gulf oil spill..."

As for Madoff, he is in jail, and he did not get away with what he did...

I said,
"lack of enforcement that... allowed Madoff to get away with what he did."
By that, I meant he was bilking people for a many years. From PBS: Madoff said, "To the best of my recollection, my fraud began in the early 1990s".
It took almost two decades to find him and it is now known that many regulators did not do what they should have done. That is what I meant. And for crissake I know Madoff is in jail. Why do you assume I'm saying something stupid and jump on me for that???

It does appear, and it seems there will never really be a thing we can all agree on.

Getting back to the original OP the latest news is that 87% of Dems support increased taxes, 66% indys, and 43% Repub. That is what the people want, and this is a government of the people, etc. The minority of people will be dissatisfied, but that is the way things often are.

 

[Gipper]

Getting back to the original OP the latest news is that 87% of Dems support increased taxes, 66% indys, and 43% Repub. That is what the people want, and this is a government of the people, etc. The minority of people will be dissatisfied, but that is the way things often are.

Higher taxes will not solve the problem. The problem is too much government spending. Unless spending is curbed, increasing taxes will have little effect and could have a very negative effect resulting in higher deficits and increasing debt levels.

If your poll is correct, it is meaningless other than to prove a high percentage of Dems are fools. This nation is a representative republic. Our reps should do the right thing rather than what the majority wants.

Many liberals wonder why big business is not investing since they are flush with cash. The reasons include they fear Big Ears and tax increases. Along with the huge increase in regulations and the onerous impact of Obamacare, it is not difficult to see why big and small businesses are hoarding cash.

A tax increase imposed on the wealthy who already pay nearly all the income taxes could push this economy into another Great Recession.

 

[ProudLefty]

Higher taxes will not solve the problem. The problem is too much government spending. Unless spending is curbed, increasing taxes will have little effect and could have a very negative effect resulting in higher deficits and increasing debt levels.

If your poll is correct, it is meaningless other than to prove a high percentage of Dems are fools. This nation is a representative republic. Our reps should do the right thing rather than what the majority wants.

Many liberals wonder why big business is not investing since they are flush with cash. The reasons include they fear Big Ears and tax increases. Along with the huge increase in regulations and the onerous impact of Obamacare, it is not difficult to see why big and small businesses are hoarding cash.

A tax increase imposed on the wealthy who already pay nearly all the income taxes could push this economy into another Great Recession.

Why is there this mantra of "we are spending too much"? These are spendings inflicted on us by a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

But more to the point, the sticking place seems to be the horror of the Ronald Reagan tax rates. Why do Republicans suddenly feel that Saint Ronald set taxes way too high? What is the problem with returning to his tax rates? That would solve this problem instantly.

 

[Gipper]

Why is there this mantra of "we are spending too much"? These are spendings inflicted on us by a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

But more to the point, the sticking place seems to be the horror of the Ronald Reagan tax rates. Why do Republicans suddenly feel that Saint Ronald set taxes way too high? What is the problem with returning to his tax rates? That would solve this problem instantly.

Can you please prove returning to Reagan's tax rates would solve this problem instantly?

 

[Dr.Who]

The best way to increase revenue is the grow the overall tax base.

That deserves to be posted again.

 

[Dr.Who]

Speaking for myself as a liberal, I agree with everything you say. The disagreement is in the details. I am basically distrustful of big business and would want tighter regulations on some businesses than you.
I think the tax code should be simplified, but still be increased and remain progressive. Business should thrive, but not if they are given free run cheat people like Verizon did by putting unauthorized charges.

Neither regulations nor the tax code can be used to stop businesses from cheating. But laws can.

 

[BigRob]

It was lack of proper regulations that allowed Wall Street to cheat customers by giving shaky derivatives high ratings. If regulations are not enough to prevent that then Wall Street needs better type of regulations, or more regulations.


I'm sorry I was not clear. Here I was referring to the heavy investment firms and not the banking business in general.


I know about FM and FM. That was done by Democrats and that was stupid. One problem is that the government has too many educated in law and not enough educated in macroeconomics.


Please reread. I said "...lack of enforcement that led to the gulf oil spill..."


I said,
"lack of enforcement that... allowed Madoff to get away with what he did."
By that, I meant he was bilking people for a many years. From PBS: Madoff said, "To the best of my recollection, my fraud began in the early 1990s".
It took almost two decades to find him and it is now known that many regulators did not do what they should have done. That is what I meant. And for crissake I know Madoff is in jail. Why do you assume I'm saying something stupid and jump on me for that???

I don't assume you are saying something stupid, I do not think you are stupid.

All of that said, if lack of enforcement is the problem, what good are new regulations going to do? Why don't we just enforce what is already there?

Getting back to the original OP the latest news is that 87% of Dems support increased taxes, 66% indys, and 43% Repub. That is what the people want, and this is a government of the people, etc. The minority of people will be dissatisfied, but that is the way things often are.

Of course the majority of people will want it...it is because they are being told the problem can be solved, and they won't have to pay an additional dime.

I would wonder what percent of those polled would actually see a tax increase?

 

[Openmind]

That deserves to be posted again.

I agree. HOwever, we seem to differ on what would allow the economy to grow again (more significantly that it is now doing), and thus to provide more revenues:

The GOP believe that giving more money to the wealthy, so they can create jobs would get the economy back on track.

The Democrats believe that, it is the "little people" who create the demand, when they do have the money to purchase products, and that that demand is what will trigger the hiring of more people to increase the production.

Once again, it is the difference between the "trickle down" economy (or supply side economy) and the "demand side" economy.

If you can show me why people who have NO money would suddenly begin purchasing more goods, just because more good is being produced. . .I may consider changing my mind!

However, if a warehouse is full of product that is unsold, why would ANYONE hire more people to increase the inventory that remains unsold by lack of demand?