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.

(Yahoo)   Workers' share of national income hits record low over last decade because of A) President Obama; B) socialism; or C) companies' record profits?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 134
    More: Obvious, hit records, foreign worker, David Frum, LexisNexis, Great Recession  
•       •       •

1351 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Jun 2011 at 10:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-15 06:47:29 AM
D) Increased efficiency i.e. more productivity from fewer people.

How do you "fight" that?

Should banks stop using ATM's and hire more tellers? Maybe a construction company can sell it's backhoe to China and hire more guys with shovels.
 
2011-06-15 06:50:10 AM

Elvis_Bogart: How do you "fight" that?.


Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.
 
2011-06-15 07:02:57 AM

7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.


Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.
 
2011-06-15 07:12:57 AM

Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.


That's a sorry, played out excuse.
 
2011-06-15 07:16:16 AM

Alphax: That's a sorry, played out excuse.


Well, that's a convenient way to "win" an argument, just declare victory and stop the debate.
 
2011-06-15 07:26:55 AM

Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.


About 90% on anything over $250k should be enough, plus more taxes on non income sources of wealth. Also change the system so poor douchebag small business owners stop counting their business as personal wealth.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2011-06-15 07:31:56 AM

Elvis_Bogart: Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.


Just how low do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to America, but you've gone too far.
 
2011-06-15 07:32:03 AM

Elvis_Bogart: more likely to hurt small business owners


Like Joe the Plumber?

Relax. Imaginary income is still off-limits.
 
2011-06-15 07:36:54 AM

Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.


Just enough to balance the budget. Thats all. If the budget isn't balanced, ipso facto taxes are too low.
 
2011-06-15 07:40:23 AM

CokeBear: Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.

Just enough to balance the budget. Thats all. If the budget isn't balanced, ipso facto taxes are too low.


100 percent taxes on everyone rich and poor won't do it. Now what?
 
2011-06-15 07:43:23 AM
I should add: if you want lower taxes, first make the cuts you want to reduce expenditures by that amount, then you can have you lower taxes, assuming the budget is still balanced. Stop shifting your costs to my generation. We're getting sick of it, and will take our revenge by putting you all in old age homes before your time.
 
2011-06-15 07:45:44 AM

RobertBruce: CokeBear: Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.

Just enough to balance the budget. Thats all. If the budget isn't balanced, ipso facto taxes are too low.

100 percent taxes on everyone rich and poor won't do it. Now what?


Start with cancelling the Bush tax cuts. I'd support up to 50% tax on portions of income over $250,000. Obviously you won't be able to reverse all the tax cut damage overnight, it will take at least 10 years, but we can get back to balanced budgets. No more wars that we can't pay for, and no more bailouts. That gets us most of the way there.
 
2011-06-15 07:47:16 AM

Elvis_Bogart: hurt small business owners


Yep, Exxon is definitely a small business. Now why do you want the wealth divide in this country to continue increasing, when it resembles unstable dictatorships, with half the wealth in the hands of a select few?
 
2011-06-15 07:51:05 AM
Its because of inflation. The poorer people have a greater percentage of their income going towards food/gas/energy than the rich.

THIS IS WHY FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE #1 CULPRIT OF THE WEALTH GAP.
 
2011-06-15 07:51:20 AM
I'm game for repealing the Bush Era tax cuts. Pretty stupid of Republican "fiscal conservatives" to cut income taxes after starting the Iraq War that same year.

/Typical GOP strategy.
//Create massive financial problems while in power.
///Dump mess for Democrats to clean up and then blame them for causing it.
 
2011-06-15 08:04:27 AM
What defines a "worker" exactly? Is it the same as "working class"?

Because I sit in my cubicle all day eating farking bon bons. Anything but working, so no, I'm not part of the "working" class, presumably not a "worker" either.
 
2011-06-15 08:18:23 AM
The US already relies on a higher proportion of its federal income from the top 10% of taxpayers than any other country in the world. Taxing the rich isn't the answer.

It does, however collect less taxes from corporations than nearly any first world countries (even though it has the highest rates) due to far too many loopholes. These need to be closed.

The other source of revenue that the US has an opportunity to tap is through the implementation of a VAT tax which every other developed country utilizes.

The entire tax system needs to be revamped and simplified (which the deficit reduction commision recommended) but nothing is going to happen until 2013.
 
2011-06-15 08:19:11 AM

7of7: Elvis_Bogart: How do you "fight" that?.

Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.


Just to be certain I understand, you are for taxes on wealth rather than income?

/Interesting factoid: 10% of land owners (all corporations) in Baltimore, Maryland own 58% of the taxable land value. The bottom 10% of those who own any land own less than 1% of the total land value.
 
2011-06-15 08:22:50 AM

CokeBear: I should add: if you want lower taxes, first make the cuts you want to reduce expenditures by that amount, then you can have you lower taxes, assuming the budget is still balanced. Stop shifting your costs to my generation. We're getting sick of it, and will take our revenge by putting you all in old age homes before your time.


My plan is to start euthanizing people who voted for Bush. Start with the ones who voted for him twice.

"Turns out that you got your Medicare and SS in the form of tax cuts years ago. Why didn't you invent that income? Sorry!"
 
2011-06-15 08:23:19 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: The US already relies on a higher proportion of its federal income from the top 10% of taxpayers than any other country in the world. Taxing the rich isn't the answer.


[Citation Needed]
 
2011-06-15 08:29:39 AM

CokeBear: RobertBruce: CokeBear: Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.

Just enough to balance the budget. Thats all. If the budget isn't balanced, ipso facto taxes are too low.

100 percent taxes on everyone rich and poor won't do it. Now what?

Start with cancelling the Bush tax cuts. I'd support up to 50% tax on portions of income over $250,000. Obviously you won't be able to reverse all the tax cut damage overnight, it will take at least 10 years, but we can get back to balanced budgets. No more wars that we can't pay for, and no more bailouts. That gets us most of the way there.


again.... ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAXES ON EVERYONE ....won't fix it. Now what?
 
2011-06-15 08:31:01 AM

7of7: Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.

About 90% on anything over $250k should be enough, plus more taxes on non income sources of wealth. Also change the system so poor douchebag small business owners stop counting their business as personal wealth.


Ah, that answers it. You want to tax income. I just needed to read farther.

/The Gini coefficient for land value is much higher than for income -- One figure I saw put the former at 78% (!!) in 2002 in the United States, while the latter was "only" 41% (2000). If you want to hit the wealthy -- or just make the tax code more progressive -- an LVT does a better job than an income tax.
//It's even worse in Latin American countries, with the Gini coefficient for land holdings between 0.8 and 0.9. -- 0.82 in
Costa Rica, 0.84 in Brazil, and 0.91 in Peru. That goes from criminal to "insane."
 
2011-06-15 08:32:49 AM

AirForceVet: IamKaiserSoze!!!: The US already relies on a higher proportion of its federal income from the top 10% of taxpayers than any other country in the world. Taxing the rich isn't the answer.

[Citation Needed]


2008 OECD study

Here is an exceprt but if you google around you can find multpile references to it.

This is from WSJ


A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and Switzerland."

The OECD study-titled "Growing Unequal?"-also found that the ratio of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was by far the highest in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for Germany, 1.01 for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile's share of Swedish taxes is the same as their share of income).



OECD (international group headquartered in Paris) has all kinds of interesting stuff on their site. That's also where I got the corporate and VAT tax info.
 
2011-06-15 08:38:44 AM

RobertBruce: ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAXES ON EVERYONE ....won't fix it.


If you're trying to reduce the entire national debt to zero in one year, no. Any sane problem that you're trying to fix, like a $2T deficit lead by the Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, Medicare Part-D and his recession, then yes. Not that 100% tax falls under any definition of sane. But of course, actually honestly debating something instead of going for flaming strawmen isn't your strong suit, is it?
 
2011-06-15 08:39:28 AM
A troll and two corporate apologists. I had hoped for something from this thread, but it's already shot to pieces.
 
2011-06-15 08:45:58 AM

AirForceVet: IamKaiserSoze!!!: The US already relies on a higher proportion of its federal income from the top 10% of taxpayers than any other country in the world. Taxing the rich isn't the answer.

[Citation Needed]


Here's the same group pointing out that even though US corporate tax rates are the highest it's actual revenues collected is amongst the lowest due to tax breaks and loopholes.

Link
I've wondered how the account for the govt subsidies (like for Airbus) which is essentially a tax break, but I've never seen it.

I would imagine a google of OECD VAT tax would provide the rest of any citations uyou might be interested in.
 
2011-06-15 08:52:53 AM

UNC_Samurai: A troll and two corporate apologists. I had hoped for something from this thread, but it's already shot to pieces.


You expected anything else? What, do you expect any of those three to do anything but shiat on threads like this?
 
2011-06-15 08:54:21 AM

RobertBruce: CokeBear: RobertBruce: CokeBear: Elvis_Bogart: 7of7: Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.

Just how high do you want the taxes on "The Wealthy" to be? I know your goal is to stick it to douchebag hedge-fund traders, but you're far more likely to hurt small business owners.

Just enough to balance the budget. Thats all. If the budget isn't balanced, ipso facto taxes are too low.

100 percent taxes on everyone rich and poor won't do it. Now what?

Start with cancelling the Bush tax cuts. I'd support up to 50% tax on portions of income over $250,000. Obviously you won't be able to reverse all the tax cut damage overnight, it will take at least 10 years, but we can get back to balanced budgets. No more wars that we can't pay for, and no more bailouts. That gets us most of the way there.

again.... ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAXES ON EVERYONE ....won't fix it. Now what?


What the hell are you screaming about? If the tax rate were 100%, our national debt would vanish in about a year.

You can't use Bush's wars and tax cuts to run up the debt until it's greater than the GDP, and then use that as an excuse to keep cutting taxes.
 
2011-06-15 08:58:03 AM
i know republicans feel like the black guy has been in office for a decade, but really, it's only been two and a half years.
 
2011-06-15 09:00:14 AM

7of7: About 90% on anything over $250k should be enough


Why do you think you should be able to take 90% of someone's income? Because let's face it, for those who make $1mil a year, that's effectively what you are doing. Well, doing the math, it's closer to 75% of their income but still - you really want to take 75% of what someone made? Really?
 
2011-06-15 09:07:58 AM

EatHam: 7of7: About 90% on anything over $250k should be enough

Why do you think you should be able to take 90% of someone's income? Because let's face it, for those who make $1mil a year, that's effectively what you are doing. Well, doing the math, it's closer to 75% of their income but still - you really want to take 75% of what someone made? Really?


It's not like income is merit based.
 
2011-06-15 09:11:46 AM

Alphax: It's not like income is merit based.


what, and taxes are?
 
2011-06-15 09:21:18 AM

EatHam: Alphax: It's not like income is merit based.

what, and taxes are?


Well, they are ability based. So you're saying the most able to pay aren't necessarily our best citizens?
 
2011-06-15 09:23:48 AM

EatHam: Why do you think you should be able to take 90% of someone's income?


because it's a model that's proven to work. why do you think you should be able to amass enormous wealth at the expense of the many? that's the ass-backwards thinking here, greed is good right? no, greed is great..... for me, fark you.
 
2011-06-15 09:35:05 AM

doublesecretprobation: because it's a model that's proven to work.


90% has been proven to work? Where?

GAT_00: Well, they are ability based. So you're saying the most able to pay aren't necessarily our best citizens?


Of course they aren't necessarily our best citizens. And I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, but 90%? Really?
 
2011-06-15 09:36:09 AM
We need to get the spending under control first. Otherwise, doing away with the Bush tax cuts will just give Congress more money to spend.
Congress will never take any additional monies and put them toward paying off the deficit. That is not how they roll. Instead, they will look on the additional income the same way that you or I would be tempted to look on an inheritance from our rich aunt Betty. We would want to spend the money on a new car or vacation rather than on paying down our mortgage. The smart thing to do is to take Betty's money and use it to pay off all existing bills first, put some money in the bank for a rainy day, put some money in the bank for the kid's college fund, put some money in our retirement fund and then, if there is anything left over, buy the new car.
Congress is not responsible enough to spend the additional money wisely.
 
2011-06-15 09:39:16 AM
It doesn't need to be 90%

It farking clearly needs to be 'more than it is now'.
 
2011-06-15 09:41:12 AM

cehlen: We need to get the spending under control first.


First? Before what, the double dip depression? Because a lack of demand is what's hurting our economy.

cehlen: Otherwise, doing away with the Bush tax cuts will just give Congress more money to spend.
Congress will never take any additional monies and put them toward paying off the deficit. That is not how they roll. Instead, they will look on the additional income the same way that you or I would be tempted to look on an inheritance from our rich aunt Betty. We would want to spend the money on a new car or vacation rather than on paying down our mortgage. The smart thing to do is to take Betty's money and use it to pay off all existing bills first, put some money in the bank for a rainy day, put some money in the bank for the kid's college fund, put some money in our retirement fund and then, if there is anything left over, buy the new car.
Congress is not responsible enough to spend the additional money wisely.


Yeah, yeah... gub'mint bad, so vote Republican.
 
2011-06-15 09:43:14 AM

EatHam: doublesecretprobation: because it's a model that's proven to work.

90% has been proven to work? Where?

GAT_00: Well, they are ability based. So you're saying the most able to pay aren't necessarily our best citizens?

Of course they aren't necessarily our best citizens. And I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, but 90%? Really?


A 90% MARGINAL RATE - which is what was in place under Eisenhower.
 
2011-06-15 09:44:12 AM
Congress will never take any additional monies and put them toward paying off the deficit. That is not how they roll.

First of all you mean debt not deficit.

Second of all you only have to go back to Clinton to show this isn't true: few hundred billion dollars of the debt was paid down.

So other than being completely wrong your contribution was pretty valuable.
 
2011-06-15 09:47:08 AM

UNC_Samurai: A 90% MARGINAL RATE - which is what was in place under Eisenhower.


A 90% marginal rate on everything over $250k equates to roughly 75% total rate on $1m.
 
2011-06-15 10:08:25 AM

EatHam: but 90%? Really?


Actually, I don't even think that. I'd say restore tax levels to pre-Bush, and then create a new bracket at 350k for 45%, one at 500k for 50%, and one for 1M+ at 55%. Those can be dropped in a few years, but we need a net surplus for a while to pay off the debt.
 
2011-06-15 10:21:05 AM

EatHam: UNC_Samurai: A 90% MARGINAL RATE - which is what was in place under Eisenhower.

A 90% marginal rate on everything over $250k equates to roughly 75% total rate on $1m.


Hardly. You're missing a big part of the game.

My bracket puts me close to 25% (you see, this would be marginal if I was at the top). I paid less than 8% this year. (Effective rate).

It would be quite easy to cut that 90% marginal rate down to 30%-40% effective rate or less given our current tax code.
 
2011-06-15 10:21:18 AM
What we require is a few methods to prevent companies from profiting off of unemployment. One of the big problems we have here is that most profit is gained by laying off thousands of workers.

A way around this is to create a federal dole: companies would then have to make a choice of either paying for people to sit around or have them work. And not a minimal amount either. I would say that we could set the unemployed salary at around 35k a year with full benefits....granted, those 'benefits' would be taken away from the companies so they don't spend them haphazardly as they have done in the past.

We need to play hardball with companies. Thanks to their machinations, they have the ability to undermine the government (and by extension, the nation and its population) for more gains. If we force them to pay everybody regardless of their employment or not (which they could do easily given how much money they make nowadays), then we would see more jobs being created.

Productivity is a nice idea in a world where creating a new business was easy. But since the corporations have stifled any new competition, we must take drastic action. Creating a dole to force corporations to hire is the only solution at this point. Especially since they are keen on either hiring people for the short-term at pathetically low wages.

We need to boost the economy somehow, and if corporations are hoarding money, what other choice do we have?
 
2011-06-15 10:24:08 AM

GAT_00: EatHam: but 90%? Really?

Actually, I don't even think that. I'd say restore tax levels to pre-Bush, and then create a new bracket at 350k for 45%, one at 500k for 50%, and one for 1M+ at 55%. Those can be dropped in a few years, but we need a net surplus for a while to pay off the debt.


Why not a VAT tax so everybody contributes? That's done everywhere else.

As I posted earlier it's pretty well documented that the US has gone after the upper 10% significantly more than any other developed country. It's the corporate and VAT taxes where they have lagged.
 
2011-06-15 10:26:15 AM
Rich folk and people who stupidly think they're rich need to remember one thing.

Most of the bank robbers and big name criminals in the Great Depression got their start kidnapping and holding rich people for ransom.

There aren't enough cops out there.

Just keep chuckling to yourselves about how the other "half" lives. They'll bring you to their party real soon.
 
2011-06-15 10:27:31 AM

GAT_00: EatHam: but 90%? Really?

Actually, I don't even think that. I'd say restore tax levels to pre-Bush, and then create a new bracket at 350k for 45%, one at 500k for 50%, and one for 1M+ at 55%. Those can be dropped in a few years, but we need a net surplus for a while to pay off the debt.


We should keep it. When was the last time we added a new tax bracket? Anybody?

$373,000 used to be a much higher number than it is now. Why has our tax system focused on that for so long?
 
2011-06-15 10:31:31 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Rich folk and people who stupidly think they're rich need to remember one thing.

Most of the bank robbers and big name criminals in the Great Depression got their start kidnapping and holding rich people for ransom.

There aren't enough cops out there.

Just keep chuckling to yourselves about how the other "half" lives. They'll bring you to their party real soon.


Not to mention with the dissolution of police/fire unions, what makes you think the police will back the Rich? The police are just as badly paid as the rest of us are. If it comes down to an actual class war, how many cops do you think will don riot gear so Mr. and Mrs. Inherited Wealth can skip the country?

Oddly enough, this also applies to the military. In any revolution the people win when the military sides with them. How well will the CEOs fare when they have to defend themselves?
 
2011-06-15 10:32:41 AM

7of7: Elvis_Bogart: How do you "fight" that?.

Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.


Which puts the money in government's pockets and not yours, so exactly how are you better off?
 
2011-06-15 10:33:36 AM

7of7: Elvis_Bogart: How do you "fight" that?.

Greatly increased taxes on the wealthy and closed tax loopholes on business.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but do we not want to GIVE tax breaks to US companies if they keep their work force in the US? Part of the reason so many jobs have gone overseas is that taxes on US companies made it so it was financially beneficial for companies to go overseas. Give them a reason to keep the jobs in the US would be a nice start.

Tax the wealthy a bit more? Sure, I guess, but that is a small piece of the overall puzzle.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report