Only a fool thinks one party is the party of billionaires.

Bless his heart

(07-02-2015 12:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Source that our 90% rate was among the lowest?

When we were at 90% most developed countries were at 95% or 100% or even over 100%. And as you yourself note, we have a great many exclusions and deductions that reduce what is actually paid. We had way, way more of those in the 1950s, in fact up until the 1986 tax law, and none of the other developed countries have ever had them.

Quote:Our corporate rate has so many loopholes that many of our largest corporations pay nothing in taxes at all. You know this right?

No, I don't know that because I know that to be untrue. Why don't you find one corporation that made a profit (a necessary criterion, since our corporate tax is based on net income) that paid nothing in taxes at all. Hint: you won't find any.

Quote:Germany has free college. Scandinavian countries have free health care. They redistribute far more than we do.

They have a better safety net, and I would be in favor of looking at some of the things they do in that regard. But as I stated, their philosophy is safety net, not redistribution. They pay for it with consumption taxes (38-40% of total government revenues) which are inherently regressive.

How does this affect ambulance chasers? You make a living convincing juries that it is "fair" to assess punitive damages against defendants just because they have money. You make a living promoting class warfare. The more we hear about the "rich" and the "1%" the easier your selling job becomes. I wonder how much you would truly care about justice if you weren't raking 40% off the top.

Thanks for the laugh. Defense is literally the only part of government Republicans don't want to cut. And Republicans are constantly trying to cut taxes for the wealthy. In addition to voting to cut the $5mm estate tax, they fought the Buffett rule to raise taxes on millionaires and held the middle class Bush tax cuts hostage in 2013 to preserve the tax cuts in the highest bracket. Every GOP candidate grovels at the feet of their billionaire backers (Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros, Foster Freiss) and those billionaires carried individual campaigns in 2012 and will do so again this cycle. It's a party that's entirely bought and paid for by Wall Street and the billionaire class and you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.

(07-02-2015 01:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Thanks for the laugh. Defense is literally the only part of government Republicans don't want to cut. And Republicans are constantly trying to cut taxes for the wealthy. In addition to voting to cut the $5mm estate tax, they fought the Buffett rule to raise taxes on millionaires and held the middle class Bush tax cuts hostage in 2013 to preserve the tax cuts in the highest bracket. Every GOP candidate grovels at the feet of their billionaire backers (Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros, Foster Freiss) and those billionaires carried individual campaigns in 2012 and will do so again this cycle. It's a party that's entirely bought and paid for by Wall Street and the billionaire class and you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.

You clearly don't pay attention to who donates to democrats.

(07-02-2015 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When we were at 90% most developed countries were at 95% or 100% or even over 100%. And as you yourself note, we have a great many exclusions and deductions that reduce what is actually paid. We had way, way more of those in the 1950s, in fact up until the 1986 tax law, and none of the other developed countries have ever had them.

The Soviet bloc countries? We weren't exactly in competition with them for individuals and capital.

Quote:No, I don't know that because I know that to be untrue. Why don't you find one corporation that made a profit (a necessary criterion, since our corporate tax is based on net income) that paid nothing in taxes at all. Hint: you won't find any.

Wrong.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101917093
There are 20 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, including drugmaker Merck (MRK), computer storage company Seagate (STX) and automaker General Motors (GM), which reported effective tax rates of 0% or lower in the second calendar quarter despite reporting a profit during the period, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ. To be included, the companies also needed to report positive earnings before taxes including unusual items.
This analysis shows that while U.S. companies and investors constantly grumble about corporate tax rates, there are many companies that pay nowhere near the highest rates. This is the rule, not an exception. A 2013 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that profitable U.S. firms filing a Schedule M-3 paid federal taxes of 13% of pretax worldwide income. That's well below the top 35% statutory rate.

Quote:They have a better safety net, and I would be in favor of looking at some of the things they do in that regard. But as I stated, their philosophy is safety net, not redistribution. They pay for it with consumption taxes (38-40% of total government revenues) which are inherently regressive.

How does this affect ambulance chasers? You make a living convincing juries that it is "fair" to assess punitive damages against defendants just because they have money. You make a living promoting class warfare. The more we hear about the "rich" and the "1%" the easier your selling job becomes. I wonder how much you would truly care about justice if you weren't raking 40% off the top.

Of course they have less inequality and fewer billionaires to begin with, so redistribution is less of an issue. The money is more spread out so regressive consumption taxes are less offensive than they would be here.

Punitive damages are pretty rare actually. I think you may be confusing them with noneconomic damages which is far more common.

So we're trying to shape public consciousness and with it the jury pools with talk of redistribution huh? That would be pretty damn cunning. I hate to disappoint but that's the first I've heard of it, and I talk to a lot of trial lawyers. I think the law attracts a lot of left wing true believers, because they think they can use a law degree to change the world.

I and almost everyone I know charge 33% in ordinary cases, 20% in workers comp. I don't think anyone collects 40%, unless there are time consuming appeals.

(07-02-2015 01:42 PM)dfarr Wrote:  You clearly don't pay attention to who donates to democrats.

I do pay attention. Clinton and Obama rake in millions from Wall Street. And it's a huge problem. It's why Obama's DOJ hasn't prosecuted any Wall Street exec and none of them spent a day in jail in the wake of the financial crisis, and it's why I expect nothing to change under Hillary. Among Hillary's top donors are the massive firms like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Bernie Sanders isn't though. The big firms give him probably nothing because he's promised to break them up like Standard Oil, Bell telephone. It was just announced that 99% of his donations were from individuals giving under $250. Hillary raised 3x as much money with 1/5 as many donors.

Quarterly effective tax rates are not annual tax rates. The stuff you quoted is irrelevant.

And no, I wasn't talking about the Soviet bloc countries, I was talking predominantly about Western Europe. Nobody was investing in the Soviet bloc then. But lots are investing in former Soviet bloc countries, many of whom are attracting the investment with low tax rates.

And as far as the "they have less inequality and fewer billionaires" argument, why do you suppose it is that the country with the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world is also the one with the most unequal dispersion of income and wealth?

(07-02-2015 12:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  "Amerika" didn't have trouble finding investors in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 90%.

A Sanders America would be a more just America. The Scandinavian countries he wants to emulate are doing pretty damn good by most metrics.

The conservatives saying "we can't afford" what he proposes seem to have no trouble finding billions to give tax cuts for the rich, or to launch their wars du jour.

So who is paying for the sovereign defense of those Scandinavian countries that are doing so well? Oh yeah, the US and UK. They won't be doing so well if Bernie gets elected, emulates their budget, and they get absorbed into Putin's empire.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

One other point. There are now plenty of alternatives where tax rates are in the 20s or less. Both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin recommended we adopt similar rates and broaden the base by reducing exclusions and deductions. If higher tax rates were the right answer, why do you suppose they recommended the opposite?

Here is what nobody on the left has explained satisfactorily. How is it that on the one hand you criticize US companies and investors for moving investment and jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but on the other hand you believe that higher costs, higher taxes, and even more intrusive regulations won't cause even more to go overseas?

(07-02-2015 12:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:08 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  "Amerika" didn't have trouble finding investors in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 90%.

A Sanders America would be a more just America. The Scandinavian countries he wants to emulate are doing pretty damn good by most metrics.

You know what's really stupid?

Comparing little homogenous Scandinavian countries with around 5 million people with a gigantic, multi-cultural, world power like the United States.

Explain in a non racist way why being homogenous is preferable to diversity.

Neither is preferable but governing a homogenous country of people with very similar values, and that share a cultural and social heritage is easier than dealing and accommodating the demands of a diverse population.

BTW have you been to Sweden?
Do you know any Swedes not Swedish Americans but Swedes?

They are wonderful people but culturally fairly different than Americans. They believe in the value of work for what it brings to the collective. Their children are expected to perform in the classroom not encouraged to perform but expected to. Parents never brag about their kids it is considered vulgar to do so. The children are raised to be extremely polite and to work.

Government is much more involved in the life of a Swedish citizen.
One of our Swedish friends worked for the government housing authority, a citizen had to wait in a queue to acquire a larger flat and prove that they needed more room.

Sweden still has social stratification to a certain extent. People marry outside of their caste but being of noble blood still matters. One of the Swedes I met was a noble, wore a family crest ring and everyone knew he was 63rd in line to the throne.

(07-02-2015 12:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  A Sanders America would be a more just America.

Ahh, ****,

(07-02-2015 12:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Germany has free college.

No they don't.

(07-02-2015 12:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Scandinavian countries have free health care.

No they don't.

Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Clinton and her minions can suck it.

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much?

Paranoid? No. Worry about the middle class? Yes?

This is one aspect Obama has failed in. His presidency has been thus far been view favorably and I don't see that changing, but man he is such a corporate slave, it disgusts me.

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

This is something we will always disagree on. Big government is nearly as much a threat when you live in a democracy because you can show the politician the door the moment they try to pull some BS. Big corporations are buying and selling elections to the point where your or my vote is meaningless.

(07-03-2015 11:13 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

This is something we will always disagree on. Big government is nearly as much a threat when you live in a democracy because you can show the politician the door the moment they try to pull some BS. Big corporations are buying and selling elections to the point where your or my vote is meaningless.

Politicians don't control big government. Bureaucrats do. And you exercise zero control over bureaucrats. None. Not any. Neither do politicians.

(07-03-2015 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:13 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

This is something we will always disagree on. Big government is nearly as much a threat when you live in a democracy because you can show the politician the door the moment they try to pull some BS. Big corporations are buying and selling elections to the point where your or my vote is meaningless.

Politicians don't control big government. Bureaucrats do. And you exercise zero control over bureaucrats. None. Not any.

?

This is a pretty dumb comment. Bureaucrats are the ones passing bills? Bureaucrats are the ones gives giving big businesses the tax cuts, and increasing the tax burden on the middle class?

When a defense contractor gives millions to a republican candidate or when wallstreet gives millions to the corrupt clinton, they aren't doing it to be nice. They expect policy favors in return....its really that simple.

(07-03-2015 11:24 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:13 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

This is something we will always disagree on. Big government is nearly as much a threat when you live in a democracy because you can show the politician the door the moment they try to pull some BS. Big corporations are buying and selling elections to the point where your or my vote is meaningless.

Politicians don't control big government. Bureaucrats do. And you exercise zero control over bureaucrats. None. Not any.

?

This is a pretty dumb comment. Bureaucrats are the ones passing bills? Bureaucrats are the ones gives giving big businesses the tax cuts, and increasing the tax burden on the middle class?

When a defense contractor gives millions to a republican candidate or when wallstreet gives millions to the corrupt clinton, they aren't doing it to be nice. They expect policy favors in return....its really that simple.

If you think that is a dumb comment, then you have no idea how our government works. It ain't the way they teach in civics class. When a bill says XYZ regulatory agency is going to write the regulations to implement this bill, where do you think the power lies? And lobbyists spend way more time with bureaucrats than they do with elected officials. Why? Because that's where the power is.

And you do realize, don't you, that we have the highest tax burden on business, and the lowest tax burden on the middle class, of any developed country.

(07-03-2015 11:13 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 11:05 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Bernie has my vote. I am not sure how people aren't getting tired of being dicked around by the rich as well as massive corporations. I trust the government more than I do corporations. And let me make it clear, I don't want a socialist economy, but socialism has many safeguards that protect consumers and the general public, which should be a part of our system.

Paranoid much? What have the "rich" done to you?

We have far more to fear from big government than big business.

This is something we will always disagree on. Big government is nearly as much a threat when you live in a democracy because you can show the politician the door the moment they try to pull some BS. Big corporations are buying and selling elections to the point where your or my vote is meaningless.

Exxon doesn't have the military at their disposal to enforce their goals at gunpoint.