[Craig Sweet]

Patrick..

I think the key is not to put the horse before the cart....if the stimulus works...and frankly, I'm not sure the $750 billion is enough....the very short term money in the pockets approach to generating demand,  might lead to some businesses benefiting from the deductions for equipment in the stimulus plan...ALSO....infrastructure projects mean road builders etc. will be putting laid off workers back to work...that's a good thing....new technology investments might mean more purchasing of materials, equipment etc...

I have seen some posts here where people express concern that government spending is a one time shot and then nothing....I think they miss the point....this one time shot is a priming of the pump...once primed, the pump should work as it always did....hopefully.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

I'm a Democrat....so my party did not sue.  The New Party, the Working Family (?) Party in NY sued to allow for "fusion"  candidates..or some such thing...essentially, it would have allowed a candidate to run as both a Republican and a Constitution Party candidate, for example, and I believe have their total vote count....the idea being a Constitution Party member might not want to register as a Republican, but might like the Republican candidate....thus if the Repub was on the CP ballot they could vote for that person without switching parties...

This idea is far from proportional representation....I would much rather see a scenario where a minor party gets a percentage of the legislators based on the percentage the party's Presidential candiate got, for example.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

Your arguments against proportional representation are absurd!   However, if you wish to assume ALL politicians are liars, fine....how long do you think it would take under a proportional system for the liars to be tossed out? I don't think it would take long at all...first of all, if  you feel you will truly have representation you are more apt to have greater involvement in the civic discourse...and honest people will rise to the top and run for office....

You know, both of the major parties in existence today were yesterdays "fringe" party.  Within these two major parties there's all types, but to whom are they accountable to?  Those members with Libertarian leanings aren't accountable to libertarians...and those Democrats with green party leanings aren't accountable to the greens...I say, lets make then accountable by giving those parties the opportunity to sit at the table...

I have no problem with there being "fringe" or extreme views in out Congress...they make the debate more honest....but under the current system they have no power and no chance of ever having any.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

How different would the world be today if Ross Perot's party (what were they called?) had won 16% of the seats in Congress based on that election?

I would like to see a system that requires our government(s) to figure out how to govern via coalition building....

What makes our democracy so special that it's a winner take all system?  It seems, that here in the 21st century winner takes all has led to gridlock, acrimony, the influence of big money and seniority....and all of that has led to very little actual "governing".

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas....

Do you want 50.1 percent having 100% of the power?

I'm suggesting that proportional representation, that works so well on the local level, will work on the national and state levels.....proportional representation does localize the decision making much more than the current two party, 50.1 percent gets all the power,  system.

Across the country there's hundreds of elected bodies that operate under proportional representation....why not our state and national governments?

[Voytek Wilczak]

Craig,

I don't know of one small business in my community or local region that will benefit, substantively, from the stimulus plan.

As much as I like watching the news channels, they continue to be negative and aren't doing much to inspire consumer confidence.

While some discourage it, I'm a believer in buying "American"
We've got to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

I know one thing.

Buying "American" isn't going to hurt the country or our citizens.

Provided we don't manufacture crap, like GM or Ford does.

It's time for an American manufacturing revolution, when we let the old socialist, union-controlled entities die, and on their place a new companies will sprout that will do it better.

The downside?

It will take a generation, because the economy is a Darwinian process, after all.

The more agile win.

And we'll have to compete with China, which wants to eat our lunch.

So either way, get ready for many years of economic pain.

The old world order is over. The US has become just one of the rest. The only thing that distinguishes from the rest is our nukes. Some people say we'll use them as the global separatist economic warfare rages on.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don...

I do not think businesses should get a tax cut to provide a job...I think it is in their best interest to pay people more money..you know how that is...a good hand is worth the extra money.........but perhaps a tax credit for providing insurance or child care assistance is appropriate.

OK,
So no tax break for companies that are surviving and providing employment in todays economy. Ever think that if they got a tax break they might even create more jobs? Most of this thread is so far over my head that I'm afraid to even wade in here as to appear foolish...but isn't the govt spend billions in an attempt to create more employment? Why not give the money to those who already know how to create and sustain employment? You think the govt will do it better?   

[Craig Sweet]

Don...

Jobs are not created with tax breaks...jobs are created when there is demand...right now NO ONE is spending...not consumers, not business....so that leaves government as the spender.

My understanding of the stimulus plan is the money will create mostly private sector jobs...I think we all agree our national infrastructure is in disrepair and this work needs to be done...but I do not see the local rich guy coming up with the money to do this work...that is where the government steps in....so I do see his company getting the bid to do this job....so yes...the money is being given to someone that already knows how to sustain employment.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Craig,
The stimulas $$$ may get to the companies, but once the govt gets involved I'm guessing it's pennies on the dollar and nothing like what could have been had they just stayed out of it in the first place.

I worked for the State of CA for 7 years, thus my disdain for govt's ability to manage much of anything with any practicality is grounded in what I witnessed firsthand.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

Talk about your Red Herrings!  Why do you assume those operating outside the Republican and Democrat parties to be fringe wackos?

What's wrong with a coalition government that requires compromise and "horse trading" to bring about legislation?  Isn't that better than partisan gridlock, or a government where every single member of the minority party can in vote NO on an issue? How does that form of partisanship serve the people?

The sad fact is most of our governing bodies are a winner take all, 50.1 percent rule kind of deal...the remaining 49.1 percent get zip for their efforts and more regrettably, 49.1 percent of the population gets shut out of the process....little by little, over time, they withdraw from the process...I'm sorry Dave, but I would rather sit there with my 15% knowing someone is going to have to listen to my agenda, compromise on my agenda, to get their agenda passed...seems to me that is democracy in action.

[Craig Sweet]

Don...

I think you have to take a wait and see position here....as I understand it....the infrastructure money will go to the states...Montana is getting something like $625 million in spending and tax breaks...and that money will then go through the normal process of funding projects...project budgets drawn up, projects put out to bid...etc. 

I do not see how you can pump that kind of money into the economy without government.....are you suggesting private business should come up with the money for these projects?  How would they raise that money? How would they do work on public infrastructure without government involvement? How would they decide where to spend the money...what projects get priority?  Remember....you and I are not spending any money...we're tapped out....business is not spending either....they are tapped out as well.....who is left to spend money to fund this? 

[Steve Lapper]

 Lastly, you ask how did you (and I) contribute to this mess. We all sat on our hands willingly allowing the bubble to build while practicing partisan politics. We tacitly endorsed the status quo and did so with little thought as to the longer-term consequence. Some of us continued our conspicuous consumption and rejection of the more somber values that founded this great country. We elected politicians whose personal gain was more important than prudently securing our future. We became a nation of debt and leverage. We never really questioned the overheated housing bubble and never called on our regulators to clean up the graft and greed of our marketplaces. We supported a unchecked free-market and are now paying the price for our moral laziness.


...

We aren't in your run-of-the-mill, every other decade cyclical recession or slowdown. This is a viscous deflationary spiral and might well be both epochal and a paradigm shift..
...

We are in a royal GLOBAL shit storm and we need to examine (and maybe  even try) every possible creative solution. We need to be bold, find all the ways to create jobs, and think outside the stale box that put us here.

These statements represent my feelings precisely.  The most efficient and useful solution is the best in this case, regardless of its sponsor or its philosophical underpinnings.  Beggars can't be choosers.  I don't care whose idea it is.  I just care that it works.  What worries me about what's coming out of Washington is that it's NOWHERE NEAR focused enough on what it needs to be focused on.  The program seems to be expanding into an "everything under the sun" plan to right all wrongs in America all at once.  I was always taught "first things first". 

Sorry, but that means things like more money for the arts and more money for the environment and more money for day care and more money for other stuff we don't need is going to have to wait, or at least should.   So should all of the education spending.  We need laser focus on what matters right now.   And what I'm seeing is a philosophy indicating that all money, spent on anything, has the same economic effect.  That, of course, is ridiculous.

Dave,

   As much as I like the arts and the environment, I agree with you. I do take exception, though, for some support (measured I'd suggest) for education. Our nation's education is our future, period and we can and should always find capital to invest in our students. Perhaps we should then ask more from them, but let's not abandon their intellectual return on capital.

Voytek,

   China has ZERO interest in "eating our lunch." They need us (for at least two more decades) for a myriad of reasons. Our consumers feed their manufacturing. Our dollars remain the reserve currency for the world. Any serious examination of the next twenty years of Chinese growth reveals the intricate ties necessary for BOTH nations.

    I don't disagree with your assessment that the old world order is over as we knew it, but it is our navy, air force and conventional military that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. Nine (maybe ten) other nations have nukes, but none have an air superiority (only Israel comes close) and only Russia can compete with our naval forces. These conventional forces, coupled with our special forces still define the world's military dominant body.

[Voytek Wilczak]

 Lastly, you ask how did you (and I) contribute to this mess. We all sat on our hands willingly allowing the bubble to build while practicing partisan politics. We tacitly endorsed the status quo and did so with little thought as to the longer-term consequence. Some of us continued our conspicuous consumption and rejection of the more somber values that founded this great country. We elected politicians whose personal gain was more important than prudently securing our future. We became a nation of debt and leverage. We never really questioned the overheated housing bubble and never called on our regulators to clean up the graft and greed of our marketplaces. We supported a unchecked free-market and are now paying the price for our moral laziness.


...

We aren't in your run-of-the-mill, every other decade cyclical recession or slowdown. This is a viscous deflationary spiral and might well be both epochal and a paradigm shift..
...

We are in a royal GLOBAL shit storm and we need to examine (and maybe  even try) every possible creative solution. We need to be bold, find all the ways to create jobs, and think outside the stale box that put us here.

These statements represent my feelings precisely.  The most efficient and useful solution is the best in this case, regardless of its sponsor or its philosophical underpinnings.  Beggars can't be choosers.  I don't care whose idea it is.  I just care that it works.  What worries me about what's coming out of Washington is that it's NOWHERE NEAR focused enough on what it needs to be focused on.  The program seems to be expanding into an "everything under the sun" plan to right all wrongs in America all at once.  I was always taught "first things first". 

Sorry, but that means things like more money for the arts and more money for the environment and more money for day care and more money for other stuff we don't need is going to have to wait, or at least should.   So should all of the education spending.  We need laser focus on what matters right now.   And what I'm seeing is a philosophy indicating that all money, spent on anything, has the same economic effect.  That, of course, is ridiculous.

Dave,

   As much as I like the arts and the environment, I agree with you. I do take exception, though, for some support (measured I'd suggest) for education. Our nation's education is our future, period and we can and should always find capital to invest in our students. Perhaps we should then ask more from them, but let's not abandon their intellectual return on capital.

Voytek,

   China has ZERO interest in "eating our lunch." They need us (for at least two more decades) for a myriad of reasons. Our consumers feed their manufacturing. Our dollars remain the reserve currency for the world. Any serious examination of the next twenty years of Chinese growth reveals the intricate ties necessary for BOTH nations.

    I don't disagree with your assessment that the old world order is over as we knew it, but it is our navy, air force and conventional military that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. Nine (maybe ten) other nations have nukes, but none have an air superiority (only Israel comes close) and only Russia can compete with our naval forces. These conventional forces, coupled with our special forces still define the world's military dominant body.

Steve:

I greatly value your opinion on matters of economy - as much as anybody's on GCA.

I have followed your posts on that topic pretty diligently over the last few years and so far I have yet to find you wrong...:-).

But I have to disagree on China - the game has changed, the US is weakened, China is VERY ambitious, and they will want to take our place in the world if they can.

Lord knows, they have their own problems, and so does the rest of the world - that can be a saving grace that will give us a few years to reorganize.

The game is on.

I just am not sure that we have the best quarterback.

Pretty good offense and defense, though.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

"Sorry, but that means things like more money for the arts and more money for the environment and more money for day care and more money for other stuff we don't need is going to have to wait, or at least should. "

What an elitist crock of shit! 

Do you seriously think mothers earning $7 an hour at Walmart should have their child care assistance cut?  I doubt paying for child care has ever been a problem for you, but I can tell you this....when I surveyed the employees at our local Walmart (with Walmart's assistance) single parents working there made just over $12,000 a year...and those employees that claimed to be in a two parent household earned $30,000.....i

If we are going to insist in this country that paying someone $6.50 cents an hour is OK...then some form of child care payment assistance damn well better be a priority, because it is going to be for those families....

And how you can sit there, in what I will assume is a pretty nice place to live...a place you have no doubt invested plenty of money in to improve your living conditions, can post here with a straight face that spending money on maintaining our environment, is not a priority, then you are more short sighted than I imagined.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Shivas...

"Sorry, but that means things like more money for the arts and more money for the environment and more money for day care and more money for other stuff we don't need is going to have to wait, or at least should. "

What an elitist crock of shit! 

Do you seriously think mothers earning $7 an hour at Walmart should have their child care assistance cut?  I doubt paying for child care has ever been a problem for you, but I can tell you this....when I surveyed the employees at our local Walmart (with Walmart's assistance) single parents working there made just over $12,000 a year...and those employees that claimed to be in a two parent household earned $30,000.....i

If we are going to insist in this country that paying someone $6.50 cents an hour is OK...then some form of child care payment assistance damn well better be a priority, because it is going to be for those families....

And how you can sit there, in what I will assume is a pretty nice place to live...a place you have no doubt invested plenty of money in to improve your living conditions, can post here with a straight face that spending money on maintaining our environment, is not a priority, then you are more short sighted than I imagined.

Craig:

You are probably right...

But to generate all the money you are talking about it is not enough to tax all the folks above 250K.

That is beyond ridiculous.

You need to generate sustainable flow of money if you want to accomplish what you want (which is a noble cause, I'll admit).

BUILD BUSINESS FIRST!!!

[Craig Sweet]

Voytek...

Look...no one...is suggesting we stop taxing people earning less than $250,000....I have not looked at the particulars of Obama's tax plan, but what I have heard is the top marginal rate for earners above $250,000 would go to 39%...the same rate as during the Clinton years....and the itemized deductions for those taxpayers would be reduced....I am sorry, but I hardly see this as being a problem.

Right now...given our economic crisis, someone has to step up and spend money....yes, tax cuts need to be a part of the solution, and the stimulus package has the largest tax cut in history....but there has to be spending.  I am sure you have seen the data that supports the contention that every dollar spent will generate more "bang for the buck" than every dollar in tax cuts...given what I have already posted...that there are no spenders out there except government, then we have little choice...

Business stands to benefit greatly from this stimulus package...both in the near  term with the tax cuts and long term with the spending....

If you have a better idea for creating jobs and demand. please share it.  Saying "leave it up to business" or eliminate all business taxes doesn't cut it....we have tried variations on that theme many times in our 275 year history and it has never produced long term economic growth.

[Jeff Goldman]

Wow, this is going a long way.  A problem with some of the reforms -- term limits, incentives, plans, etc. is that, as I usually tell folks who want to get rid of the corporate income tax, this kind of stuff just changes the rules; it cannot stop the game.  The problem, such as it is, is human nature, not government, business, labor unions, etc.  Sort of analogous to the fact that a great golf course can be ruined or saved by an architect, club president, superintendent, head pro, green committee, green committee chairman, or any combination of the above.  All of us can recite examples where any of these folks held the line against putting "3 new holes and a pond" on a classic course, as well as examples where any of these folks led the charge to put an island green into a classic parkland course.

This gets to another big issue which we see on this thread, which is the amount of blaming that's going on, much of it certainly deserved.  Martin Wolf made this point a while age:

"Keynes’s genius – a very English one – was to insist we should approach an economic system not as a morality play but as a technical challenge."

So I think that the issues are how to get out of this "muddle" as he put it, and to avoid the next one, rather than to decry the fact that people act pretty much as we would expect given certain criteria.  The worst of those folks should go to jail, but it's not going to get us out of the fix we're in.

[Craig Sweet]

I remember two years ago...18 months ago....we had all these guys hawking their mortgage services around here....they might have been the dominate advertisers on local radio...they were everywhere ....now, most of those guys are gone.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...

Here's a group..an entire town, that thinks spending on the environment should be a priority...

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/03/01/bnews//br25.txt

[Steve Lapper]

Kelly,

   More likely was the situation where Madoff stayed close enough to the SEC that he knew exactly how they worked, invited no disbelief, and would realize how to avoid their regulatory reviews. The SEC was, as Markopolis said during his recent Congressional testimony, pitifully inept . I don't think he "paid them off" in any way....didn't need to. His modus operandi was to play himself as highly esteemed, a former chairman of NASDAQ and a market innovator. That way, this highly political regulatory body wouldn't allow much to touch him. (Btw...just look at their recent Pequot-Morgan Stanley-Mack investigation kibosh...same style of nolo-regulation).

   FINRA (ex NASD) on the other hand...... that remains a story for private messages (and probably future trial discovery).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Voytek...

Look...no one...is suggesting we stop taxing people earning less than $250,000....I have not looked at the particulars of Obama's tax plan, but what I have heard is the top marginal rate for earners above $250,000 would go to 39%...the same rate as during the Clinton years....and the itemized deductions for those taxpayers would be reduced....I am sorry, but I hardly see this as being a problem.

I agree.
But, I don't think anyone, those making under or over $ 250,000 are concerned about a single increase of 4 % to the Federal Income Tax rate.

The itemized deductions are another matter.
If you take the charitable deductions away, charities will wither and die.
Charities are facing two dilemas.
For whatever the reason, the younger generation is not nearly as charitable as the two generations above them.
Getting younger people (50 and under) to become involved and donate to charity is very difficult, regardless of their station (income and/or net worth)
If you reduce or eliminate deductions for charities, the impact will be devastating.

Few, if any, taxpayors are appopletic about increasing the rate to 39 %.
What they are worried about is that increase will be just the beginning of the class war and redistribution of assets.

Shortly after Obama was elected, one of his aides or associates declared that "the days of wealth accumulation and retention in America are over".

That bothers every household making $ 250,000 or more.

The concern is that Obama is anti-business ( the markets have seemed to respond and indicate that) and that households that make $ 250,000 or more are the sworn enemy, and that they will be punished and taxed accordingly.

If people work long hours and make great sacrifices, why shouldn't they make and KEEP more money ?  If you remove the incentives and rewards, you'll destroy the entepreneurial spirit in America, individually and corporately.

I don't know about you, but, I want the neurosurgeon who operates on my child to be making $ 1,000,000+ a year versus a regulated salary of
$ 75,000.

If you have a better idea for creating jobs and demand. please share it.  Saying "leave it up to business" or eliminate all business taxes doesn't cut it....we have tried variations on that theme many times in our 275 year history and it has never produced long term economic growth.

First, permanent Federal Income Taxes originated in 1913, only 96 years ago, so I don't know how you context your point in a 275 year time frame, that's disengenuous.

Second, we've enjoyed nothing but long term economic growth over the last 96 years.  We may have had some bumps in the road, but the path/ trend of economic growth has been fairly constant, and we've all benefited from it.

It's not "leaving it up to business", it's crafting SOUND business-government policies, not adversarial policies.

Government has to work with business, not against business as it has in this country for decades.

If Wal-Mart didn't hire that single mom, chances are she'd be unemployed.
A menial job is better than no job.

[Cliff Hamm]

  If you remove the incentives and rewards, you'll destroy the entepreneurial spirit in America, individually and corporatel

[/quote]




This is a table of the top marginal tax rate faced by married couples for most of the last century in the US.

Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,

    * the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the "top bracket," listed below as "Taxable income over--");
    * the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.

The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table

Tax year   Top marginal
tax rate (%)    Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1>    Taxable
income over--
1913   7       500,000
1914   7       500,000
1915   7       500,000
1916   15       2,000,000
1917   67       2,000,000
1918   77       1,000,000
1919   73       1,000,000
1920   73       1,000,000
1921   73       1,000,000
1922   58       200,000
1923   43.5       200,000
1924   46       500,000
1925   25       100,000
1926   25       100,000
1927   25       100,000
1928   25       100,000
1929   24       100,000
1930   25       100,000
1931   25       100,000
1932   63       1,000,000
1933   63       1,000,000
1934   63       1,000,000
1935   63       1,000,000
1936   79       5,000,000
1937   79       5,000,000
1938   79       5,000,000
1939   79       5,000,000
1940   81.1       5,000,000
1941   81       5,000,000
1942   88       200,000
1943   88       200,000
1944   94 <2>       200,000
1945   94 <2>       200,000
1946   86.45 <3>       200,000
1947   86.45 <3>       200,000
1948   82.13 <4>       400,000
1949   82.13 <4>       400,000
1950   84.36       400,000
1951   91 <5>       400,000
1952   92 <6>       400,000
1953   92 <6>       400,000
1954   91 <7>       400,000
1955   91 <7>       400,000
1956   91 <7>       400,000
1957   91 <7>       400,000
1958   91 <7>       400,000
1959   91 <7>       400,000
1960   91 <7>       400,000
1961   91 <7>       400,000
1962   91 <7>       400,000
1963   91 <7>       400,000
1964   77       400,000
1965   70       200,000
1966   70       200,000
1967   70       200,000
1968   75.25       200,000
1969   77       200,000
1970   71.75       200,000
1971   70   60   200,000
1972   70   50   200,000
1973   70   50   200,000
1974   70   50   200,000
1975   70   50   200,000
1976   70   50   200,000
1977   70   50   203,200
1978   70   50   203,200
1979   70   50   215,400
1980   70   50   215,400
1981   69.125   50   215,400
1982   50       85,600
1983   50       109,400
1984   50       162,400
1985   50       169,020
1986   50       175,250
1987   38.5       90,000
1988   28 <8>       29,750 <8>
1989   28 <8>       30,950 <8>
1990   28 <8>       32,450 <8>
1991   31       82,150
1992   31       86,500
1993   39.6       89,150
1994   39.6       250,000
1995   39.6       256,500
1996   39.6       263,750
1997   39.6       271,050
1998   39.6       278,450
1999   39.6       283,150
2000   39.6       288,350
2001   39.1       297,350
2002   38.6       307,050
2003   35       311.950

Patrick...wondering what years you would say that the American entrepreneurial spirit was destroyed by the tax rate on the wealthiest?  Would it be the 50's when tax rates were the highest?



   

[Bob_Huntley]

Kelly,

   More likely was the situation where Madoff stayed close enough to the SEC that he knew exactly how they worked, invited no disbelief, and would realize how to avoid their regulatory reviews. The SEC was, as Markopolis said during his recent Congressional testimony, pitifully inept . I don't think he "paid them off" in any way....didn't need to. His modus operandi was to play himself as highly esteemed, a former chairman of NASDAQ and a market innovator. That way, this highly political regulatory body wouldn't allow much to touch him. (Btw...just look at their recent Pequot-Morgan Stanley-Mack investigation kibosh...same style of nolo-regulation).

   FINRA (ex NASD) on the other hand...... that remains a story for private messages (and probably future trial discovery).

 


Steve,

The Mob would loved to have had the muscle of the Guvmint to run an extortion enterprise like FINRA.

The current head of the SEC came to do good and stayed and did well.


Bob

[Steve Lapper]

Bob,

No shit! Mary "see,hear,speake no evil" Shapiro was a lousy choice. I believe they probably couldn't find anyone competent enough who would take the job!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff Hamm,

What year were you born in ?
You must be very young.

Your historical perspective is probably linked solely to Wikipedia

If you knew anything about the historical marginal rates, you would also know how difficult it was to attain them due to available deductions and the stratification of the marginal rates.

You fail to understand and report HOW so few taxpayors hit those marginal thresholds.

To date, your argument is disengenuous.

When you understand the full extent of income tax system in those years, please get back to us.

Bill Bradley posited that lowering rates and eliminating deductions would be in everyone's best interest.

Businessmen and businesses knew the elimination of deductions was permanent while the rate reduction would be temporary.

It was a smoke and mirrors or bait and switch tactic.

Today, those households, not individuals mind you, but households making $ 250,000 fear that this is just the begining of a burdensome system, in what's become and will continue as a class warfare struggle.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()