BofA chief: We have a 'right to make a profit' by Niki2

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
that the government has zero to do with "fair", and what is and what isn't "fair". So let's just dispense with that whiney little "we pay more than our fair share" bit already. It's old, and it's not true.

Nope. It's folks like SignyM and Niki who complain "The rich aren't paying their "fair" share." What their "fair share" is tends to be sort of amorphous, but always ends up being "more".

Quote:
You keep saying the rich pay more than their "fair share" of income taxes. Even supposing I agreed with that (I don't; see above for why), the "rich" still aren't paying anywhere close to their "fair share" in payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

Actually, I just note that the rich pay a larger proportion of their income in income tax.

As to payroll "taxes", I assume you mean Social Security and Medicare. Why are these considered taxes? Social Security is a retirement plan. You get a statement from them every year, showing how much you've contributed and accrued. It also shows how much you've paid for Medicare health insurance. Should folks who pay into private retirement or health insurance plans consider those payments taxes?

Also consider that the "rich" generally get less benefit out of Social Security and Medicare. They have to pay income tax (at a pretty high rate) on any Social Security benefits they receive (assuming they even apply for them at all). I doubt you'll find Warren Buffet making Medicare claims.

Not to forget that the corporations the rich own pay a matching amount of payroll "taxes" for their employees.

Quote:
Want to make things "fair"? Get rid of the cap on payroll taxes - everyone pays the same percentage on every nickel they get - wages, tips, earnings, AND CAPITAL GAINS. Oh, and while you're at it, capital gains should be counted as "income" if more than a few thousand dollars comes from them.

I wouldn't mind upping the payroll tax cap a bit, but doing away with it has lots of unintended consequences. For one thing, businesses matching FICA tax contributions would go up quite a bit, causing prices to go up to compensate.

Capital gains rates could be raised a bit as well, but taxing them at normal rates sort'a defeats the whole purpose, which was to encourage investment.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did I say anything about "fair"?

So what is your point in this discussion, then?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Did I say anything about "fair"?- Signy
So what is your point in this discussion, then?-Geezer

For the record, I have not mentioend the wrod "fair" even once in this thread. The person who keeps whining about it, tho, is rappy.

AFA my "point": Well, I've only been saying this for, oh about the past several years or so. Maybe it will actually stick this time?

So, the point: When a banks create too much debt, and manage to hoard most of the money, economies collapse. Go bust. And that the lessons learned in the Great Depression have been forgotten but are still relevant today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For the record, I have not mentioend the wrod "fair" even once in this thread.

Okay. So when you say stuff like,

"I took a quick look at the tables. According to them, the maximum tax rate is at about 2 million. Above that, tax rates DROP."

are we to assume you're congratulating folks making over $2 million on their acumen at legally using the provisions of the Tax Code to keep more of their money?

Quote:
So, the point: When a banks create too much debt, and manage to hoard most of the money, economies collapse. Go bust. And that the lessons learned in the Great Depression have been forgotten but are still relevant today.

But that's not what you're discussing. Your first post in this thread is about taxes, tax, deductions, and tax rates.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if corporations are people, then people should be corporations, and we should all be taxed on the same schedule.

As a real person, I'm taxed on my gross receipts. I get to take a few deductions... my mortgage, saving for the future, charitable contributions and any whopping medical expenses that exceed 7% of my adjusted gross income.

But I don't get to deduct my ordinary expenses... rent, utilities, food, gas, clothes, cleaning supplies... like a corporation would. I also don't get to depreciate my car and house and any other major fixed assets.

But the most telling line is,

"Why do we put corporation up on a pedestal, so they get "special treatment"? "

Is that "special treatment" as in "Not fair"?

You may not have said the word, but your meaning comes through pretty clear.

BTW. This thread's getting pretty unwieldy for my computer. maybe we should call this one on account of rain and take it up in another thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Last comment:

I am pointing out that those entities which ALREADY have a more than average amount of money get "special" treatment and get to keep even more. "Special" because they already have their hands on another source of power: the law.

In electronics, it's called a positive feedback system: when a signal amplifies itself, leading to more signal, leading to further amplification, leading to even more signal. POSITIVE feedback, as in "un-damped". In electronics, that causes destructive oscillation. Exactly the same in economics.

That is why I say "power concentrates" in society. I could (and have) gone further to say that when two different avenues of gaining power (religion, media, money, military/police) start to combine streams, the process accelerates exponentially, but that would prolly be beyond most ppl here... even you, (sigh)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:17 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
that the government has zero to do with "fair", and what is and what isn't "fair". So let's just dispense with that whiney little "we pay more than our fair share" bit already. It's old, and it's not true.

Nope. It's folks like SignyM and Niki who complain "The rich aren't paying their "fair" share." What their "fair share" is tends to be sort of amorphous, but always ends up being "more".

Quote:
You keep saying the rich pay more than their "fair share" of income taxes. Even supposing I agreed with that (I don't; see above for why), the "rich" still aren't paying anywhere close to their "fair share" in payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

Actually, I just note that the rich pay a larger proportion of their income in income tax.

So? As you've noted, if you didn't use the word "fair", your meaning came through loud and clear. If it isn't about what's "fair" and what isn't, what do you care what proportion of their income is paid in income taxes? Why would you care if they were taxed at 95% of their income? It's happened before, and it didn't stifle investment or innovation.

Quote:

As to payroll "taxes", I assume you mean Social Security and Medicare. Why are these considered taxes? Social Security is a retirement plan. You get a statement from them every year, showing how much you've contributed and accrued. It also shows how much you've paid for Medicare health insurance. Should folks who pay into private retirement or health insurance plans consider those payments taxes?

Glad to hear that you agree with me that Obamacare is not a tax, then. It's just folks paying into private health insurance plans, after all.

Quote:

Also consider that the "rich" generally get less benefit out of Social Security and Medicare.

Why do you assume that? And aren't you trying to bring the idea of "fairness" into this discussion yet again? But why would you think the "rich" get less benefit from them?

Quote:
They have to pay income tax (at a pretty high rate) on any Social Security benefits they receive (assuming they even apply for them at all).

Is it a unique situation where only "the rich" are taxed on Social Security benefits? Are they forbidden somehow from applying for these benefits?

Quote:

I doubt you'll find Warren Buffet making Medicare claims.

But he could.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Glad to hear that you agree with me that Obamacare is not a tax, then. It's just folks paying into private health insurance plans, after all.

Good. Then we agree not to bring payroll "tax" into the debate again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Glad to hear that you agree with me that Obamacare is not a tax, then. It's just folks paying into private health insurance plans, after all.

Good. Then we agree not to bring payroll "tax" into the debate again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, as long as we're in agreement that there should be no upper limit on the income from which such "contributions" are withheld.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 3:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, as long as we're in agreement that there should be no upper limit on the income from which such "contributions" are withheld.

Now why would I agree to that?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 5:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Why not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 5:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why not?

Because payouts are limited, so folks contributing over a certain amount would never have a chance to recoup their investment. If Social Security is a retirement system, and Medicare is an insurance system, why would anyone want to pay more than a certain amount into them if they were pretty much guaranteed that, no matter how long they lived, they'd do better just putting that extra money in the mattress?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 4:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"No matter how long they live" or no matter how sick they get?

Kind of a long time, wouldn't you say? There are NEVER any guarantees in an insurance or retirement system that any particular person will ever recoup their contribution. Kinda fundamental to the system, neh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:37 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"No matter how long they live" or no matter how sick they get?

Kind of a long time, wouldn't you say? There are NEVER any guarantees in an insurance or retirement system that any particular person will ever recoup their contribution. Kinda fundamental to the system, neh?

But the contributions to an insurance plan are computed on actuarial rules and principles, balancing cost and benefit to work out, on average, what a person should pay. Mike's 'make 'em pay on all their income' idea ignores this completely.

If a corporation were to set up a system guaranteed to make such an egregious profit, with a monopoly forcing everyone to use it, you'd be going through the roof. Is it any less bad when a government does it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I think you long gave up on the idea of "fairness", so.... what's your point, again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:28 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I think you long gave up on the idea of "fairness", so.... what's your point, again?

That it doesn't make economic or business sense. Sort'a like most everything you or Mike propose.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, Geezer, it makes very good economic sense. Unless, of course, you LIKE depressions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 4:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, Geezer, it makes very good economic sense. Unless, of course, you LIKE depressions.

So you think charging folks many times more for a product (in this case retirement or health insurance) than they're likely to recover from it is "good economic sense"? When did you become what you profess to hate?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 6:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, I would only charge SOME folks more. (which BTW would be the same percentage as everyone else)

And... since you seem ready to explain my POV to me... what do I profess to hate, again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"No matter how long they live" or no matter how sick they get?

Kind of a long time, wouldn't you say? There are NEVER any guarantees in an insurance or retirement system that any particular person will ever recoup their contribution. Kinda fundamental to the system, neh?

But the contributions to an insurance plan are computed on actuarial rules and principles, balancing cost and benefit to work out, on average, what a person should pay.

And amazingly enough, that number works out to 5.2% on every dollar earned up to $108,600 - and then 0.0% on every dollar after that. That's a neat actuarial table - it seems to work like a tax, which you insist it isn't. Somehow, people who have income of $1,086,000 per year are deemed ten times less likely to ever need such "insurance"...

Quote:

Mike's 'make 'em pay on all their income' idea ignores this completely.

If a corporation were to set up a system guaranteed to make such an egregious profit, with a monopoly forcing everyone to use it, you'd be going through the roof. Is it any less bad when a government does it?

Y'all keep coming back to this idea of "fair", and what is and isn't.

I thought we all agreed that government isn't in the "fair" business.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I think you long gave up on the idea of "fairness", so.... what's your point, again?

That it doesn't make economic or business sense. Sort'a like most everything you or Mike propose.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Sorry, but the Nein-Nein-Nein tax plan isn't mine.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 23, 2011 5:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, I would like Geezer to explain what it is he thinks I "profess" to hate.

Yanno GEEZER, I can sum up your position in just a few phrase: Status quo; favor business; military honor. There is one thing that stands out from that: women's rights

I can sum up RAPPY in a few key phrases, although he tends to parrot whichever right-winger is popular at the time, so not looking for much consistency there!

Greed is great, Muslims are evil

WULF... heh, all about guns and blacks. Driven by PTSD.

But despite the various strawmen you've constructed over the years, I don't think you (or anyone) has ever REALLY thought about what "the left" is saying. So, since positions are often defined by who or what we see as "the enemy", what do YOU suppose I "hate"? Just curious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 23, 2011 9:57 AM