Dmtdust wrote:

Tax their assets at 95% as they are leaving.  That'll work.  Look, back when I was a kid, it was 80-90 percent taxation rate in the UK, and things worked.

It's a different world.  The western world has heavy competition from Asia now.  The good old boys need to make every nickel and shilling count.  No more guaranteed wide profit margins.

The 19th century taught the Brits enough about unfettered capitalism that they will, hopefully, never travel that route again. It is better to let the rich decamp than to allow them to mold a nation in their own ugly image. Apologists for the wealthy (Plato springs to mind) have turned their back on democracy and hoisted the plutocratic flag. Investment may work beautifully in a plutocracy, but I don't want to live there, and I will obstruct its goals to the best of my ability. Balances must be struck, and mechanisms must be enforced, to ensure that the rich pay their proportional share, and that they are held accountable for their decisions. If they run, they act like criminals and should be treated as such, even to the point of sequestering their accounts, putting them in jail, and dismantling their LLCs. Investment money dries up periodically anyways, and the world doesn't fall apart. When the winter's done, farmers and investors plant their seeds and pray for rain and angels. If the local gods demand sacrifice, then all must sacrifice to his own capability, with the lion's share falling to the wealthiest. Anything else is tyranny, and bad for the soul of a nation.

Emmeran wrote:

1.  Increase the personal tax rate and dramatically cut the corporate rate; the money will then stay in the businesses and start to trickle down. 
2.  Eliminate all tax deductions, I don't want to subsidize anyone's church, investment losses or mortgage.
3.  Tax all income at the same rate, I'm not interested in subsidizing anyone's investment business.
4.  Double or triple IRS and SEC enforcement divisions - one of their favorite tricks is to starve enforcement into ineffectiveness.

Trickle Down.  Emmy said Trickle Down.  Sorry, take that Social Darwinism over to Glenn Beck's site, you'll be a fit there.

But, but the "poor" people need their money RIGHT NOW! The credit card bills for their Black Friday shopping will be due before Christmas and that shit isn't going to pay it's self. We can tax it now and not have to wait. Just cut out all that "work" thing they keep talking about and "gimmie my monay now!"

You know the fat cats are just going to stuff it into mattresses and only take it out to light their cigars anyway.

The problem with "trickle down" is that you have to be working to get the benefit.

phreddy wrote:

Em, you really do not understand economics. 

Do you really think the government should have first access to everything you earn?  I see no limits to how large and oppressive government could grow under your plan.  Do you honestly believe the benefits of huge taxation would enure to the benefit of the poor and oppressed? 

Exactly what has the "War on Poverty" accomplished to date?  If all poor people received proper education, became middle class and began paying taxes, they would become Republicans.  This just won't do for the liberals, who need the ignorant and poor to fill out the base.

I probably understand economics better than most on here, you do realize that I sit on the trading desk at a major Private Equity fund don't you?  What level was your CFA again?

Yes I do think that the government should get first bite; we like our roads, schools and freedom.  I've got family standing on that wall right now and they damn sure better be paid for doing that.

Who gives a fuck about the war on poverty?  We should be a sovereign wealth nation instead we're almost a debtor nation, fuckers trying to legislate their way out of taxes is one of the biggest reasons why.

I'm not going to go through your list and pick it apart line by line - but let's just let it ride that you are spouting conflicting messages:  Subsidize business but cut entitlements.  Can you not see the conflict there?  Business subsidies are fucking entitlements you moron.

Wow - bickering about "who knows the most about economics." This is great, I love it when adults whine and bitch at each other like children. (I have two five-year-old boys and they argue just like this! "I know more about magic than you do." "No you don't. I know everything about magic. I'm a Wizard.") Economics is about as easy to make universal statements about as politics, spirituality and love. Seeing two grown men accuse each other of ignorance, while simultaneously asserting their own intellectual dominance, is well worth the price of admission. Keep going, boys, it's giving us lurkers a great laugh!

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

I probably understand economics better than most on here, you do realize that I sit on the trading desk at a major Private Equity fund don't you?

No, I did not know you were a trader.  Apparently I hit a nerve when I said, "They are the hand that feeds you".  I wonder what the investors in your fund would think of your harebrained economics.  I have a feeling you would be manning a seat at the local unemployment office if they knew.  You do realize that the vast majority of investors are not stock holders in private equity funds, don't you?  Most people are not investing with play money.

The only reason we are falling into debtor nation status is because we spend and borrow too much, not because we are taxed too little.  If you had any understanding of the equity fund industry for which you trade, you would know that your clients are the driving force behind job and wealth creation and, therefore, government tax revenues.

Private Equity you knucklehead, think Bain Capital and the only time we trade equities is when delta trading converts.

Interesting, Fartlebee accuses Em and me of arguing like children, "I know more about magic than you do." "No you don't. I know everything about magic. I'm a Wizard."  But then he comes up with this; "Now that you've opened the door to obscenity, however, I would suggest that you "Shut the fuck up" yourself..."  To which I shall now offer the appropriate response:  No, you shut the fuck up!!

Em wrote:

Private Equity you knucklehead, think Bain Capital and the only time we trade equities is when delta trading converts.

FYI Em, not all private equity funds are limited partnerships, think Blackstone Group.

feisty wrote:

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

It is believed that they moved abroad....but there's no proof of anything so that means jack shit.  More than likely, they "reduced their taxable incomes" by being unpatriotic little shits and hiding their money.  I have no sympathy for someone who actually has the ability to CHOOSE what tax burden they have by engaging in tax avoidance schemes when I'm paying a higher percentage of what I make than they EVER have.  Fuck them.  If I've got to pay, so do they.

Thank you Feisty, I enjoyed that.  The French had a solution:



And then seize all of their assets.  Just Sayin'.

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

Private Equity you knucklehead, think Bain Capital and the only time we trade equities is when delta trading converts.

FYI Em, not all private equity funds are limited partnerships, think Blackstone Group.

True now but they started as an LP; we went the other route and took the funds themselves public under a nifty law (loophole) we were allowed to make them Business Development Corporations (BDCs).

Tall Paul wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

feisty wrote:

It is believed that they moved abroad....but there's no proof of anything so that means jack shit.  More than likely, they "reduced their taxable incomes" by being unpatriotic little shits and hiding their money.  I have no sympathy for someone who actually has the ability to CHOOSE what tax burden they have by engaging in tax avoidance schemes when I'm paying a higher percentage of what I make than they EVER have.  Fuck them.  If I've got to pay, so do they.

Thank you Feisty, I enjoyed that.  The French had a solution:



And then seize all of their assets.  Just Sayin'.

Just as long as they don't make sausages out of them.

Where ya been Polly? I thought I may have to spend the rest of my life without reading your lame assed, nothing, fucking douche nozzle, boring, mother fucking comments. 

I mean really, did you put any thought into your nonsense or did you just bang on your keyboard like a fucking chimp and that is what randomly came out?

phreddy wrote:

1 .Increasing the personal tax rate while decreasing the corporate rate will result in more corporate perks for company officers and much less money for stock holders.  Stock holders are people invested in pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s.  They are you and me and your grandmother.

The first sentence is partly true and mostly nonsense.  The second and third are true but saccharine cliche.  Having more disposable revenue will also allow corporations to invest more in r&d, hiring, marketing, dividends, etc.  These things all help appreciate share value.  To a small degree, the higher personal rates will discourage plowing the additional increment of disposable corporate revenue back into taxable compensation for executives. 

Getting $61 out of $100 is always better than getting $0.00.

phreddy wrote:

2.  The mortgage deduction is what spurs housing construction in this country.  I could argue that government does not belong in the housing market, but without it housing would be much more expensive.  And, that goes for rentals too.

The mortgage deduction is a spur to the housing industry but is hardly the whole story.  The deduction does affect the housing market very significantly.  While the deduction undoubtedly makes borrowing cheaper, conservative (or should I say traditional liberal economic) orthodoxy is that it actually encourages pricing to rise.  If price is whatever the market will bear, then making borrowing cheaper will tend to push prices upward. 

It seems to me that the best first step would be to limit the mortgage interest deduction.  We need the tax revenue, and those who can afford multi-million dollar houses hardly need the benefit.  Besides, the whole mega-mansion thing is nauseating.  Why should the public fisc pay (or lose, if you will) for such self-indulgence?

phreddy wrote:

3.  Business income has already been taxed at the corporate level.  It's just another layer of gouging by the government.  Do you think rich people place their money in a can buried in the back yard?  No, they invest it in our economy and create jobs.  They are the hand that feeds you.

Doesn't this run completely counter to your first point?  The double taxation argument has some merit but is a little tiresome.  Worker income is double taxed just as much as business-owner income.  So what's the point? 

They are not the hand that feeds me.  They are the hand I bite.  The "job creator" line doesn't sell anymore.  Come up with a new one.

phreddy wrote:

4.  Do you really think the government should have first access to everything you earn?  I see no limits to how large and oppressive government could grow under your plan.  Do you honestly believe the benefits of huge taxation would enure to the benefit of the poor and oppressed?  Exactly what has the "War on Poverty" accomplished to date?  If all poor people received proper education, became middle class and began paying taxes, they would become Republicans.  This just won't do for the liberals, who need the ignorant and poor to fill out the base.

Here you are just beating a tired old drum, sounding a lot like Romney.  Nothing said here requires a response.  It is just silly.

opsec wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

Where ya been Polly? I thought I may have to spend the rest of my life without reading your lame assed, nothing, fucking douche nozzle, boring, mother fucking comments. 

I mean really, did you put any thought into your nonsense or did you just bang on your keyboard like a fucking chimp and that is what randomly came out?

Awww... this is exactly how a cat expresses missing you.  I'm getting all smurgly.

Yeah, I feel all warm and snuggley inside every time BC demonstrates his great difficulties with the simple concepts. I thought even he might have enough short term memory to associate 'eat the rich' with a suggestion of guillotining them, and here he is proving me wrong once again.

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

1 .Increasing the personal tax rate while decreasing the corporate rate will result in more corporate perks for company officers and much less money for stock holders.  Stock holders are people invested in pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s.  They are you and me and your grandmother.

The first sentence is partly true and mostly nonsense.  The second and third are true but saccharine cliche.  Having more disposable revenue will also allow corporations to invest more in r&d, hiring, marketing, dividends, etc.  These things all help appreciate share value.  To a small degree, the higher personal rates will discourage plowing the additional increment of disposable corporate revenue back into taxable compensation for executives. 

Getting $61 out of $100 is always better than getting $0.00.

phreddy wrote:

2.  The mortgage deduction is what spurs housing construction in this country.  I could argue that government does not belong in the housing market, but without it housing would be much more expensive.  And, that goes for rentals too.

The mortgage deduction is a spur to the housing industry but is hardly the whole story.  The deduction does affect the housing market very significantly.  While the deduction undoubtedly makes borrowing cheaper, conservative (or should I say traditional liberal economic) orthodoxy is that it actually encourages pricing to rise.  If price is whatever the market will bear, then making borrowing cheaper will tend to push prices upward. 

It seems to me that the best first step would be to limit the mortgage interest deduction.  We need the tax revenue, and those who can afford multi-million dollar houses hardly need the benefit.  Besides, the whole mega-mansion thing is nauseating.  Why should the public fisc pay (or lose, if you will) for such self-indulgence?

phreddy wrote:

3.  Business income has already been taxed at the corporate level.  It's just another layer of gouging by the government.  Do you think rich people place their money in a can buried in the back yard?  No, they invest it in our economy and create jobs.  They are the hand that feeds you.

Doesn't this run completely counter to your first point?  The double taxation argument has some merit but is a little tiresome.  Worker income is double taxed just as much as business-owner income.  So what's the point? 

They are not the hand that feeds me.  They are the hand I bite.  The "job creator" line doesn't sell anymore.  Come up with a new one.

phreddy wrote:

4.  Do you really think the government should have first access to everything you earn?  I see no limits to how large and oppressive government could grow under your plan.  Do you honestly believe the benefits of huge taxation would enure to the benefit of the poor and oppressed?  Exactly what has the "War on Poverty" accomplished to date?  If all poor people received proper education, became middle class and began paying taxes, they would become Republicans.  This just won't do for the liberals, who need the ignorant and poor to fill out the base.

Here you are just beating a tired old drum, sounding a lot like Romney.  Nothing said here requires a response.  It is just silly.

Best post in thread (not that anyone asked me).

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

1 .Increasing the personal tax rate while decreasing the corporate rate will result in more corporate perks for company officers and much less money for stock holders.  Stock holders are people invested in pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s.  They are you and me and your grandmother.

The first sentence is partly true and mostly nonsense.  The second and third are true but saccharine cliche.  Having more disposable revenue will also allow corporations to invest more in r&d, hiring, marketing, dividends, etc.  These things all help appreciate share value.  To a small degree, the higher personal rates will discourage plowing the additional increment of disposable corporate revenue back into taxable compensation for executives. 

Getting $61 out of $100 is always better than getting $0.00.

Corporate perks can and are taxed as compensation, we need to get a little more strident in that area but it's not a mountain needing to be climbed.

Shartleby The Scrivener wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

Hey Shart, (May I call you Shart?). If you are looking to meet a lady, check out Tall Paul. You and she may be compatible.

Sorry Bigcat, I prefer my ladies to be ladies. Do you just hang out here to insult people? There must be more profitable ways to spend your time.

Yes, That is why I hang out here.

I assumed by the tone of your postings that you were hanging out here to seek a fairy with low self esteem. That's why I intoduced you to Polly Poop Packer.

You don't have to hide your craving for chugging cock here, We like our resident homos.

Poor, poor butthurt Big Cat, lashing out at a world that doesn't care. Insults won't help, trolling won't help even if you were able to troll less transparently than the average 13-year-old. Try a little ointment on your soul, it may quench that burning sensation you get every time you think of your inadequacies.

Bigcat wrote:

Again, this is just a space waster of a post.

My point exactly, BC, so stop making them. Admitting you are a thread-spamming troll is the first step to overcoming your adicktion.

Bigcat wrote:

Also, If you think I am not able to troll you, take a look back at the last year or so of posts. I get you every time. 100% success.

It seems we have differing views about what constitutes success. Tell me, Genius, who's in control, the troll or the one who feeds the troll? Are you holding the whip or taking the trip? You recall my comment about aggravating small dogs until they shit all over the car...... Well, you're going on a diet, Big Poodle. Koochie koo.

Last edited by Tall Paul (2012-12-02 01:14:56)

Tall Paul wrote:

Poor, poor butthurt Big Cat, lashing out at a world that doesn't care. Insults won't help, trolling won't help even if you were able to troll less transparently than the average 13-year-old. Try a little ointment on your soul, it may quench that burning sensation you get every time you think of your inadequacies.

http://assets.vice.com/content-images/c … fab69a.jpg

Funny post, if a little crude. Why do you guys put up with all the trolls on this board?

Shartleby The Scrivener wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

Poor, poor butthurt Big Cat, lashing out at a world that doesn't care. Insults won't help, trolling won't help even if you were able to troll less transparently than the average 13-year-old. Try a little ointment on your soul, it may quench that burning sensation you get every time you think of your inadequacies.

http://assets.vice.com/content-images/c … fab69a.jpg

Funny post, if a little crude. Why do you guys put up with all the trolls on this board?

It's partly because some are amusing (or stimulate a special brand of schadenfreude when they think they're amusing), but mostly because shutting them up involves tactics which no one here wants to employ. Trolls, curmudgeons and nut-jobs need freedom of speech more than anyone.

Personally I think if Paul and Cat were to just admit it and get a room we'd all be a lot happier.

Bigcat wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Personally I think if Paul and Cat were to just admit it and get a room we'd all be a lot happier.

If that is what your happiness rides on then you ar a sad, sad little bitch.

Nah, I'm just a dude who has four teenagers living in his house - happiness to me is a twenty minutes to pinch a loaf without someone asking me for money through the door.