(12-01-2011 04:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't know where you're getting this information but it, especially the bolded part, is complete BS (or a "lie" as you like to call it). Today, a person making a million dollars only gets taxed 35% AFTER the first $380,000. (Just like everyone else, that first $380k is broken up into the first several brackets and taxed at those (smaller) rates).
Now, in 1955, that rate at $380k, accounting for inflation, was 56%, but it kept going up. At $500k, it was 62%. At $900k it jumped to 75%. And at $2.8M it rose to 90%. Only when you reached $3.75M (accounting for inflation) did it hit 91%.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Re...de_of_1954
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_...ted_States
The 1986 IRC didn't close loopholes/eliminate tax shelters near what you're suggesting. Losses on real estate were no longer allowed to be deducted, yeah, but your suggestion that only 30%-50% of income was taxable in the 1950s to make the rate in the end comparable to now is ridiculous. I want sources.

OK, I was oversimplifying. I'm sitting in a Starbucks and didn't have all my resources available. I agree that the precise calculations would be a bit different, but the overall trends would not. You can plug your more precise rates in and see that. If you do that, your more precise numbers make the point that I was trying to make even stronger than the calculation with the simplified numbers. So your efforts to expose what you call my "lie" actually prove my point better than my simplistic calculations.

The 1986 law managed to close enough loopholes that liberal democrat Bill Bradley concluded that the "rich" would pay as much at a 28% rate with the new definition of taxable income as they would at a 50% rate with the old definition. Otherwise, he would not have supported it. That was pretty clear in the legislative history and contemporary news coverage. I think Bradley wrote a book laying that out, as well. You can look those up as easily as I can. That would suggest something approximating a 2:1 change right there, which gets into the range I was talking about without even considering 1982 and 1994 and other efforts to close loopholes. The real estate deductions were far from the only 1986 change. The interest deduction was strictly limited, and there were any number of others. ITC was eliminated, and with it a lot of the 10% equity, 90% debt tax shelters went away. At the time, I was preparing individual returns for a number of wealthy individuals, and their tax bills changed very little from 1984 to 1988.

But you are deflecting away from two other points I have made.

One, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission came down strongly on the side of exactly what I am proposing--lower rates and close loopholes for both corporations and wealthy individuals. They said that was the best way to raise revenues while fostering economic growth. So avoiding the rabbit trails, why do you not support that?

Two, comparing historical rates is not the way to go. I can't choose to be taxed in Texas today or in Texas in 1955. I can choose to be taxed in Texas today or in Poland today. While there are other factors, if Poland is always going to be the better deal for taxes, at some point I am going to move there--or somewhere else that gives me a better deal. I may be more patriotic than most, and therefore I may choose to stay here longer. But if it's costing me money to do so, at some point I'm going to say "no mas."

(12-01-2011 04:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2011 04:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not interested in seeing America join India and China in a race to the bottom. When the right talks about creating "jobs" they're interested in having Japanese automakers ship parts to a "right to work state" in the durty south like Texas so some non-union ******* can screwdrive parts together for peanuts and let all the corporate money flow back overseas. Oh and let the Detroit automakers fail. That's what conservatives want.
Raise tariffs on imports from countries which screw over their workers. Eliminate loopholes and rules that permit overseas tax shelters/safe harbors. And buy American for God's sake.
In the end many of these so-called "patriots" on the right do end up doing the patriotic thing and keeping their money here to improve our country. To bring up Peoria again.... Maybe you've seen in the news recently how Caterpillar threatened to leave our fair city (world HQ for CAT) if Illinois didn't adopt a more "business friendly" climate. In the end it was all a lot of bluster. They're not going anywhere.

If this is directed at my post, several points.

One, who said anything about a "race to the bottom" with India and China? I've said repeatedly, we can't compete with them. Germany can't compete with them either, and Germany is doing fine, unless they have to put all of Europe on their back. Of course, the fact that it is even a legitimate suggestion that they should put all of Europe on their back is testament to how well they are doing. Let China and India sew up our Nikes and assemble our TV sets. Low-margin consumer goods aren't where we are going to make our mark. We need to compete for the upscale end of the market. That means taking on Germany, and your arguments fall apart when Germany is the competitor. The problem is that if we don't take a look at making taxes and regulatory processes competitive with the rest of the world, we have no alternative but a race to the bottom with India and China. I'm trying to point out that there is another way.

And by making regulatory processes competitive, I mean precisely that--regulatory PROCESSES. I'm not talking about dirty air or dirty water. I'm talking about not taking three years to issue a no-brainer permit. Norway has far more stringent environmental standards for offshore oil drilling than we do, but you can get a drilling permit in about 1/6 the time. And Norway hasn't had a blowout to ruin the North Sea, or even the threat of one, despite the fact that the North Sea is a far more inhospitable environment than the Gulf of Mexico. That's what I'm talking about.

Your isolationist approach might have worked hundreds of years ago when the US was a distinct and discrete market. For just about anyone today, the relevant market is the world. Your approach would result in nothing but making US companies non-competitive for export sales. People might locate enough capacity here to serve the US market, but everything for sale anywhere else would be made elsewhere. Let's say I'm making TV's for sale all over the world, and it costs $400 to make a TV here but only $100 to bring it in form China. Tack a $300 tariff on the Chinese TVs and as far as TVs for sale in the US, I'm ambivalent whether I make them here or in China. But for the ones I'm going to sell in England or Brazil or South Africa, it's clear--I'm making those in China. And that being the case, it's probably going to make more sense to make the US TVs in China too.

Caterpillar hasn't left Peoria.... yet. Many have left the US. Many more will leave if the policy changes proposed by Obama and other democrats take place. Look at it this way. Caterpillar is somewhere close to ambivalence about leaving or staying. That much is clear. Make things worse for them here, and at some point they get off the fence. That point is different for every company. It's probably about as far for Caterpillar as anyone because they really do have a strong patriotic bent to their culture. If Caterpillar is getting close, others are already there. And that's being reflected in the statistics that we all can see.

Why not say, "Hmm, we need to move in directions that will get Caterpillar off the fence and committed to staying and do the same for thousands of others"? Why is that not better than seeing just how far we can push them before they've had enough and leave? Or are forced to choose between leaving and shutting down, because they simply can't remain in the US and remain competitive and profitable in the world economy? Those are real threats, if you didn't get that message from Caterpillar, you should have.

Remain profitable? CAT is posting RECORD profits. Their threats to leave are driven by greed and bluster, and not a damn thing to do with staying competitive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...54474.html

Quote:Caterpillar Inc., the world's largest maker of construction and mining equipment, reported a 44% surge in its third-quarter earnings and said it is finally regaining market share in the Chinese market.

The Peoria, Ill., company's stronger-than-expected profits and forecast of a between 10% and 20% sales increase in 2012 helped push up the company's shares and the broader U.S. stock market on Monday.

Yes CAT probably has a more patriotic culture and is tied to this town and state more than others. It gives tens of millions to Bradley, it's building a massive downtown museum; just about everything has CAT's fingerprints. Until the CEO's latest bluster I would have said it's the model company.

Their push for workers comp reform, lower corporate taxes, clamps on unions and everything else pure and simple has nothing to do with fairness. Believe me. I went down to Springfield at the end of the last legislative session. I've talked at length with my state senator. It's pure greed and making as much money as possible off the backs of the workers. Just like it is anywhere else. And if the government doesn't keep it in check and insure livable wages and safe workplace conditions, it won't happen.

Your TV example makes no sense because you'd be making them in China anyway without the tariff. What's your point? Are you for a race to the bottom or not? And no it wouldn't make sense to manufacture overseas if the tariff is substantial enough and you need the US market.

So a more competitive regulatory process would have stopped the gulf oil spill? Making it easier to get a permit? What? That's the lesson you've taken away from BP??

Smoot/Hawley Max. You really need to read about it.

(12-01-2011 10:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  "Charity" has several problems. It leaves lives in the hands of churches and billionaires, who get to play God and decide who lives and who dies and attach their own conditions to treatment, and it will almost certainly not meet demand.

Govt. doesn't play God and decide who lives and who dies, attaching their own conditions to treatment that doesn't meet demand??

(12-01-2011 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What Would Jesus Do?

He'd likely pay someone else to do it for him so he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty or actually see the needy. Just pay someone to keep them out of sight.

(12-01-2011 05:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Remain profitable? CAT is posting RECORD profits. Their threats to leave are driven by greed and bluster, and not a damn thing to do with staying competitive.
Yes CAT probably has a more patriotic culture and is tied to this town and state more than others. It gives tens of millions to Bradley, it's building a massive downtown museum; just about everything has CAT's fingerprints. Until the CEO's latest bluster I would have said it's the model company.
Their push for workers comp reform, lower corporate taxes, clamps on unions and everything else pure and simple has nothing to do with fairness. Believe me. I went down to Springfield at the end of the last legislative session. I've talked at length with my state senator. It's pure greed and making as much money as possible off the backs of the workers. Just like it is anywhere else. And if the government doesn't keep it in check and insure livable wages and safe workplace conditions, it won't happen.

Those record profits amount to about 7% of sales, or a 6% return on assets. If you think those numbers are unreasonable, then we will just have to disagree there. A look at CAT's most recent 10-K reveals that from 2006 to 2010, they went from 54% sales outside the US to 68%. They're making those profits overseas, and not repatriating them, as the note on taxes indicates that they saved $339 million in 2010 by paying taxes at lower rates on unrepatriated foreign earnings. In the last three years, worldwide employment has declined by 8,000, the vast majority of the reductions in the US. The MD&A section of the 3Q 2011 10-Q indicates that the largest sales growth over 2010 is in the Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia/Pacific regions. CAT's already moving out of the USA, and they're doing that to be competitive.

Quote:Your TV example makes no sense because you'd be making them in China anyway without the tariff. What's your point? Are you for a race to the bottom or not? And no it wouldn't make sense to manufacture overseas if the tariff is substantial enough and you need the US market.
So a more competitive regulatory process would have stopped the gulf oil spill? Making it easier to get a permit? What? That's the lesson you've taken away from BP??

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. If you don't understand that all these comments are gross misrepresentations of what I said, then maybe you're hopeless. Why don't you reread my posts, and this time read what I actually wrote? Then if you want to discuss further, we can.