FARK.com: (277605) The new Republican ideology: Suburban socialism

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		The new Republican ideology: Suburban socialism (slate.msn.com)		64
		More: Asinine

• • •

5686 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2002 at 4:41 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/277605

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

64 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

tgirsch		2002-08-22 02:13:31 PM

08-22-02 12:28:58 PM Stpickrell:

But I agree with you about Capital Gains taxation, mutual fund deferment, etc. Here's what I'd do with Capital Gains Taxes:

Right now, there are two kinds of taxes, short-term and long-term. I believe these are 28% and 20%, respectively. I would lower the long-term capital gains tax, and raise the short-term one, say to 35%. Maybe even introduce a super-short-term capital gains tax, wherein somebody who holds a stock for less than 30 days is taxed at 40%. This would (in theory, anyway) introduce some stability into the market by strongly discouraging day trading and short-sighted investing. And if your stock is losing and you want to dump it, you're doing so at a loss, so the tax wouldn't even apply.

tgirsch		2002-08-22 02:19:01 PM

08-22-02 12:31:07 PM Stpickrell:
[tgirsch]"Repeal the 'real person' status of corporations, and you go a long way toward fixing the problems with corporate America."
[Stpickrell]"What do you think the real-life effects of this would be?"

Currently, corporations have the same rights as individuals, but do not have the same responsibilities. Neither do they have the same accountability. Repeal of the "real person" status would eliminate this double standard.

As a prime example, Corporations, and Corporate acts, are protected by the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to groups. It was intended to apply to individuals. Just looking at Amendment #1, then, currently corporations use that to justify huge campaign donations. They claim that donating to candidates and parties is "protected free speech," (although I'm not sure how they get that idea). And yet, corporations are not subject to the same donation limits to which an individual donor must adhere.

So one obvious and easy effect of the repeal would be built-in campaign finance reform.

Anyway, as a shareholder of some company, I want the company's money to be invested in bottom-line profits, not in partisan politics.

tgirsch		2002-08-22 02:22:10 PM

08-22-02 02:12:49 PM Byrd:
"Is anybody else interested in succession? :-D"

I believe you mean "secession."

too2ez		2002-08-22 02:25:41 PM

Unfortunately, Tgirsch, a company donation in partisan politics is usually directly related to bottom-line profits - that's the only reason they donate at all.

I would prefer that corporations be barred from all political donations entirely. Yeah, I know, that wouldn't stand a chance - there would be a better chance of success with a law against bad weather.

Byrd		2002-08-22 02:27:47 PM

Tgirsch: Fair enough, but I think one would lead to the other (or something like that). Damn kids.

Lewis		2002-08-22 02:48:26 PM

All the politicos are bought and paid for anyway. All the current campaign finance laws accomplish is to cause the money to be more difficult to trace.
I say let anyone give any amount. I just want full disclosure ... a complete and thorough assessment and publication of who gave what to whom. Then, based on that information, I can choose to cast my vote for General Electric, General Dynamics, Phillip Morris, whatever. At least I'll know who I'm really voting for.

tgirsch		2002-08-22 05:02:51 PM

08-22-02 02:48:26 PM Lewis:
"All the politicos are bought and paid for anyway. All the current campaign finance laws accomplish is to cause the money to be more difficult to trace.
I say let anyone give any amount. I just want full disclosure ... "

You're missing a possibility: publicly-funded campaigns. Candidates gaining a certain number of signatures qualify to participate in primaries. The top three or four vote-getters in the primaries all get a fixed budget, provided at taxpayer expense, with which to run their campaigns. Any other expenditures and/or donations are expressly forbidden. Now the playing field is even for all candidates, regardless of financial standing.

Controversial? Sure! Are there problems with this idea? Absolutely. But it's not without its merits.

TexasSkeptic		2002-08-22 05:20:42 PM

Sprediletto, since you brought up Jynkst's profile, I took a look at his, and then at yours. I thank you for the opportunity to know who posted that Ben Shapiro editorial a few weeks back. (For those who missed it, here's the link to the forum discussing the commentary.) As I and others mentioned in that thread, it was a horrible piece of poorly written vitriol, with terrible logic to boot. Just thought I'd let you know, since I didn't see your comments about Shapiro's writing in there.

To all of those that do get it...SAVE, INVEST, Build wealth
Okay, I saved, I invested, and now I have less money from those investments than I did five years ago. And I invested primarily in mutual funds that outperformed their peers.

Yes, as you noted, the high-profile bankruptcies are a small minority of companies. However, billions of dollars of apparent wealth evaporated with them (Enron and WorldCom were very big companies), as did tens of thousands of jobs by real people, including hard workers, some of whom I know that used to work at Enron until December. These companies did not just fail, either. They were destroyed through fraud. Eraser8 noted what companies will do if given a chance; Michael Kopper told us what he personally did: "Kopper told [Judge] Werlein that he defrauded Enron of millions while helping set up and run three special purpose entities, off-the-books partnerships called Radar, Chewco and Southampton." From Ex-Enron executive Kopper pleads guilty. Government oversight is, in fact, needed to protect the many from the few, i.e. potentially criminal executives.

About Social Security privatization: what percentage of the amount invested would go to the broker-dealers who manage the accounts? Are these the same broker-dealers/investment bankers who helped set up Enron's many (some now admitted as fraudulent) partnerships? Is that wise? Who will oversee and protect this new class of investors?

TexasSkeptic		2002-08-22 06:39:57 PM

Sprediletto, random thoughts about your random thoughts about your responses to me:

I am well-acquainted with portfolio theory. I chose to take risks, and consequently realize that you are not responsible for the decline in value of my investment. Yes, the stock market is a risky place, and I know that over the long haul it has represented the best investment. (Past performance is not necessarily an indication of its future performance.) But looking at the market results for the last 75 years is one thing; looking at market results over shorter periods, e.g. a person's lifetime, is different--a person may have invested a lot in the 1960s, lost it through the 1970s, tried to build it up in the 1980s only to lose a good chunk again,

Also, many people do not have the luxury to set aside several months cash reserve. How does someone making $8 an hour with a $450/month (plus utilities) rent payment, small used car payment, maintenance bills and gas costs, health insurance and medical bills, clothing bills, and groceries set aside several thousand dollars? What about a catastrophic event, such as a crippling injury or a debilitating disease that eats up all available resources--how do you plan for a brain tumor or colon cancer that are treatable but expensive? As for financially prepared for kids: I was told by many parents that if you wait till you are financially prepared, you will never have children.

Social Security was intended as part of the social compact between citizens of this country, not as an investment vehicle. It has been clear for some time it is inadequate to meet people's retirement needs. That does not mean we should throw a portion of that money to the vagaries of the market.

But adults? Screw 'em. I couldn't care less about adults who have messed up their lives. What about people who, through lack of educational opportunities, are unable to get jobs that require sitting at a desk, talking with clients whose wealth stretches out to 8 figures, but rather clean the office or serve the lunch of such a person? Did these people "mess up their lives"? Did they choose not to be wealthy? Many of them do, in fact, take responsibility for their actions (pay bills on time, don't commit crime, etc.); but they still are unable to save a nice little nest egg of $600,000, or even of $50,000. What of an Enron employee who was laid off in December and still hasn't found a job (the market is tight here)? That six-month cushion is gone now, 9 months later.

Now, about this comment you made earlier:

Most FARKERS just don't understand these concepts. Must be too much of a Liberal Arts education and not enough focus on Economics, Business Management, Finance and Accounting. God, it really annoys me that you people are clueless.

You assume that most people have gone to college and have chosen to ignore business courses. I can tell you, an awful lot of people have never been to college and as a result have not had good exposure to Finance, Accounting, or such types of courses. Most people do not understand double-entry accounting, Black-Scholes, capital asset pricing model, derivative pricing models, or any of those other things you can learn in B-school. (You are in the small minority.) Many people do see the newspapers trumpeting the gains in the DJIA or S&P 500 or Nasdaq and so they invest there instead of choosing a balance of stocks, bonds, and money markets. Yes, people may have made investment mistakes, due to their ignorance. Was honest, objective, inexpensive investment advice available? Do brokers and investment advisers give personal advice pro bono like lawyers? (I don't mean the kind you read in the newspaper.)

Also, whom do you blame if companies such as Enron matched 401(k) investments with company stock and did not allow employees to diversify out of the investment until age 50? Do you blame the employee for having a quarter or half his portfolio in company stock, when he had no option of where to invest it?

Bildo		2002-08-22 08:36:56 PM

TexasSkeptic:

I really shouldn't get into this.
I'm assuming your from Austin because you're VERY liberal.

"I can tell you, an awful lot of people have never been to college and as a result have not had good exposure to Finance, Accounting, or such types of courses."

I should not have to subsidize other peoples stupidity. If they choose to f*ck up their lives then they have to pay the consequences. I've made financial mistakes in the past, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask the government or anyone else to help me out of them. I chose to bust my asss and recover on my own.

"What about people who, through lack of educational opportunities, are unable to get jobs that require sitting at a desk, talking with clients whose wealth stretches out to 8 figures..."

Anyone has the opportunity to go to college in the United States. We have the best higher education system in the world and the government subsidizes it. (I do support that.) To make an excuse that someone doesn't have the opportunity for an education is a blatant lie.

There is a huge difference between welfare (entitlements, subsidies, payouts) and what Bush is discussing (tax cuts).

Urbn		2002-08-22 11:40:49 PM

Bildo
I should not have to subsidize other peoples stupidity.

Then you should also look at the second part of the plan. Why should we add a bigger deduction for these people's stupidity? They gambled in the stock market and lost. Fine, cut the capital gains taxes, but they shouldn't get to deduct their losses. That's the hipocracy I see in this whole thing.

TexasSkeptic		2002-08-23 01:06:08 AM

Sprediletto:
I congratulate you on your hard work in college.

You assume in your examples that people are rational. They can be, but are not always that way. I read a book in college by Robert Roberts (?) called The Classic Slum, about industrial slums in England at the end of the Victorian and throughout the Edwardian era. Contemporary journalists had done what you have suggested: figured out a budget (food, rent, clothing) that would allow a poor worker to live within his means. But silly irrational proles! They wanted to eat things like sweets and meat once in awhile, and blew that budget all to heck.

Also, I people need help, charities are there and I'm happy to fund those. If charities had been adequate in the early 1930s, do you think we'd have gotten Social Security? Do you truly think charities will pick up the slack if the federal government pulls the plug on Social Security?

Again, you continue to argue that the individual do his own investment research, which sounds good, especially for those who know something about finances and money in the first place, but then you note that it's $500 to hire a financial planner. How many people living paycheck to paycheck--and there are many of them in this country--can shell out that extra $500? Or the extra $3,000 for full funding of an IRA? You have divulged your income above--but what if you and your wife were living on about 20% of that. Can you come up with a reasonable budget for a couple living on $2,600 per month (gross) for them to come up with the $500 and the $3,000 (times 2--contributions for both).

Also, not everyone has access to the internet and/or cable TV, and the information there--when one finds it--can indeed be complicated to understand. For example, have you read through a mutual fund prospectus or a variable annuity contract, all the way through? (My guess is that you have indeed.) Now tell me--is it reasonable to believe that someone who is a high school graduate, C+ student there, now working as a Toyota mechanic, or as a master carpenter, will read either one and understand it? Does he have to pay someone to help him understand it? Even with the SEC's "plain English" intitiative, the prospectus is a complicated thing, and very daunting to the uninitiated. There is a huge learning curve, and it's much more difficult for someone without a background understanding of the courses you noted (or in risk management via broader investment portfolio) to grasp. Regarding your investment advice (annuities, IRA, etc.): how much of that do you know from your work? Does your grandmother (if she is living) know much of what you suggest? How about some of your clients, or their parents? You have a lot of useful, specialized knowledge about investing that many people do not have or understand.

Further, as we're finding out from WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Halliburton, and several others, even if you read and understand the financial reports put out by the companies, they don't always tell you the truth. Caveat emptor?

Bildo: you assume incorrectly. I assume you are either ignorant, illiterate, or lazy, since my location is in my Fark profile and has been since I signed up. Which of my assumptions is correct?

Everyone does NOT have an opportunity to go to college in the United States. Despite subsidies, some people cannot afford it, and some people are not sufficiently educated to enter college. Solution: Remedial reading at a community college? You will have a hard time convincing me that someone in that situation will be able to go on to courses in investment theory and financial accounting and thereby gain the same employment opportunities as Sprediletto, for example.

Bildo		2002-08-23 04:04:20 AM

TexasSkeptic:

Lazy.

You're replying to someone who worked his way through college and had to take those same remedial courses you speak of. I have been paying on student loans for eight years and will be paying for another six. I have no simpathy for people who aren't willing to sacrifice to make a better life for themselves.

EVERYONE has the opportunity to go to college in the United States. Those who don't, choose not to.

Bildo		2002-08-23 04:09:10 AM

Urbn: Again, cutting taxes and paying subsidies to people who won't work are two completely different things.

You should not be taxed on money you don't make.

Cut the capital gains tax completely and I would agree to cut the deduction for losses.

Displayed 14 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.