View Poll Results: Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    28 28.87%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    61 62.89%
  • I'm not sure.

    8 8.25%
Page 58 of 81 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 809

Thread: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

  1. #571
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm all for accountability, but not in the business nature. CEOs are not the oly people held accountable.
    What do you hold the current 'CEO' of the USA accountable for?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #572
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    424

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    ,

    Actually, no. They are not. Nor was the GM bit. The government does not own GM, and never did. Like any lender, they only set the terms. But even that lending wasn't for profit.
    The Government of the United States is a SHAREHOLDER at GM, not a lender. It OWNS (or owned, I think they are selling it the remaining stock to a government owned company) a significant portion of all common stock. Did the same for AIG (which were actually preferred shares). The INTENTION was to be able to hold the stock until it was worth much more than the actual booked investment, but since GM has not been able to do well enough for even the market to value it above the $53.00 break even share price, and it is so embarrassing to the government to own a car company and a car company to be owned by government, it looks as if they will dump some more (some gone already, IIRC) for a loss to end everyone's misery.

    And, yes, many of the companies on the list are for-profit businesses. Read their financial statements.

  3. #573
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    Eh...kind of. There is a lot more money made by NOT producing anything - just hyping the price - than there ever will be from producing products. The best returns from operating company dividends seldom reach 10%, but in the world of finance, the real money is in just playing with the ink dots.

    Until you/we learn to separate out financial activity that is merely wealth redistribution and concentrate on productive endeavors that actually create wealth, the only real recovery will remain on Wall Street, not Main Street.
    Wall Street engaged in bad habits no doubt. But its not merely "playing with ink dots" and nothing else to it. They do play a major role in financing companies, reducing risk, providing liquidity, etc. etc. They may have gotten away from they are supposed to be doing at times, and there will always be greedy individuals. But don't buy into the hyperbole that Wall Street isn't important to Main Street, (and vice versa).

  4. #574
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    Please read that list and think carefully about what you see. Most of those corporations ARE run with the intent to make a profit from offering the products and/or services to their client base. They are - in a truly Marxist sense - state owned business. That doesn't include the other kinds of US gov't owned business interests - such as its very deep meddling within and ownership of Government Motors, not to mention taking the asset from shareholders and creditors in bankruptcy and giving it freely to the party's power base of the UAW and itself. Actually, a sleezey deal the likes of which would make Romney proud.

    If the US had an actual business person or two in the Oval office and Administration - one that has actually WORKED for a living by producing something and growing a company - not merely robbing shareholders in Romney style nor oblivious to the real world such as the current guy in there who has never signed the front side of a paycheque, they would run it like a real business and not spend money that is neither theirs nor realistically ever able to be repaid.
    Maybe you could give us some examples of these real business people. Like the CEO's of Ford or GM that type or maybe the robber barons on Wall Street. Maybe ex-president Bush who borrowed money from China rather then raising taxes to finance two wars. Yepper lets get a real business person in office.

  5. #575
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    424

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Wall Street engaged in bad habits no doubt. But its not merely "playing with ink dots" and nothing else to it. They do play a major role in financing companies, reducing risk, providing liquidity, etc. etc. They may have gotten away from they are supposed to be doing at times, and there will always be greedy individuals. But don't buy into the hyperbole that Wall Street isn't important to Main Street, (and vice versa).
    You should spend some time INSIDE investment banking to even begin to realize just how far away from reasonable the balance between actually investing vs. churning, playing with M&As, derivatives trading, questionable trading, commodity trading, and outright market manipulation etc. has gone.

    It is very easy to bring them back to reality: conflict of interest regulations (keep them OUT of being players in the very stocks/companies they are trading..or SHOULD BE trading on behalf of clients, that and a dozen other things). The greed-above-all factor is so far out of control, there is/was even a serious discussion about manipulating the definitions/regulations that allowed deposit banks' investment arms to designate trade accounts as eligible for FDIC coverage!!!!!!

    But most of all, stop the free ride for capital gains and stop double taxation of dividend income. Tax policy is by far the best motivator/director of financial behaviour.
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-06-13 at 11:30 PM.

  6. #576
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    What do you hold the current 'CEO' of the USA accountable for?
    He's not a CEO.

    The president is wrong to keep the practice of rendition. Same with the drone strikes. He also should have fought harder for the public option in healthcare reform.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #577
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    The Government of the United States is a SHAREHOLDER at GM, not a lender. It OWNS (or owned, I think they are selling it the remaining stock to a government owned company) a significant portion of all common stock. Did the same for AIG (which were actually preferred shares). The INTENTION was to be able to hold the stock until it was worth much more than the actual booked investment, but since GM has not been able to do well enough for even the market to value it above the $53.00 break even share price, and it is so embarrassing to the government to own a car company and a car company to be owned by government, it looks as if they will dump some more (some gone already, IIRC) for a loss to end everyone's misery.

    And, yes, many of the companies on the list are for-profit businesses. Read their financial statements.
    No, they function outside the government and the government is not doing for profit business. The US for people, not profit, kept those businesses afloat, no ownership intended. I'm sorry, but your stretching to try to Mae a square peg fit into a mound hole.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #578
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    You should spend some time INSIDE investment banking to even begin to realize just how far away from reasonable the balance between actually investing vs. churning, playing with M&As, derivatives trading, questionable trading, commodity trading, and outright market manipulation etc. has gone.

    It is very easy to bring them back to reality: conflict of interest regulations (keep them OUT of being players in the very stocks/companies they are trading..or SHOULD BE trading on behalf of clients, that and a dozen other things). The greed-above-all factor is so far out of control, there is/was even a serious discussion about manipulating the definitions/regulations that allowed deposit banks' investment arms to designate trade accounts as eligible for FDIC coverage!!!!!!

    But most of all, stop the free ride for capital gains and stop double taxation of dividend income. Tax policy is by far the best motivator/director of financial behaviour.
    I agreed with you that some investment banks have behaved badly.
    All of those use stocks as their underlying assets. They get their value from somewhere, and I'd argue just basic stock trading alone is no enough for Wall Street to provide liquidity. I agree that we should regulate banks from being able to do things like churning, or selling toxic assets to their customers, etc. etc. If we can regulate the greed, then that makes sense, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and try to kill Wall Street completely. Which if you listen to some people talk, is exactly what they want to do.

  9. #579
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Ah, so you poo poo a graph using real data, saying there is 'more data' out there, but refuse to produce the data. Instead you take the road of emotion. Go f'n figure.. you identify as a liberal, and that's what liberals do. Emotion over data.
    Are you serious that you have never heard of FICA taxes?

    "The US government imposes two direct Income taxes. The FIT tax is imposed on almost everything that breathes. The FICA income tax is imposed EXCLUSIVELY on wages up to capped amounts (2008 - $102,000), that are increased annually. Middle-class Workers pay both income taxes, the total of which may significantly exceed the single FIT rate on highly compensated individuals and wealthy pensioners whose capital gains and dividend incomes are taxed at flat rate of only 15%"
    http://www.uspublicpolicy.com/fitficaincometaxes.html

    As you can see from the graph below, FICA makes up an almost equal percentage of federal taxes as FIT:



    The working class has to pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income, but the wealthy who earn most of their income on capital gains, like Romney, pay almost no FICA taxes. That is why the average middle class worker pays a higher percentage of their income on total federal taxes than do people like Romney.

    Do you still maintain you were completely unaware of this?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #580
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    The economy was growing up until the financial crisis. And it is recovering slowly back to where it was, but we are still recovering faster then countries like France or Greece.
    The economy was growing slower after the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation than it was in the 90's, and there were less new jobs created in 8 years under Bush than were created in 4 years under the Obama administration. And as the non-partisan CBO testified before Congress, unemployment would have been worse with out the stimulus that conservatives opposed.

    That is why we reelected the president instead of electing Romney who just proposed a continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 58 of 81 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •