Politics | Mainstream Politics and Economics


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: quehubo who wrote (5881)12/17/2011 4:37:21 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 44018
 
And your having done well has not harmed others.


the drive for shareholder value has benefited disproportionately a small % of the population, mainly those who have wealth and or very high income.

You do need to be a stockholder in order to benefit from increased shareholder value.


Meanwhile the drive for higher earnings every year means many of those working for the top few percent who are the shareholders have lost medical coverage and retirement benefits.

Is that true? And when employees lose coverage and retirement benefits is it mostly because the greedy rich took it away to make themselves richer or did the industry run into trouble making almost everyone in it worse off, including shareholders?


I dont think the present tax system is fair because I dont trust politicians or the top 1% to determine what is fair.

It may be unfair, but is it ever going to be? Can we even give fairness a definition everyone would accept?

I asked another poster (I think) what percent of taxes the top 1% ought to be paying. I never got an answer to that question. Maybe you could supply one?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: longnshort who wrote (5883)12/17/2011 4:38:18 PM
From: Brumar89   of 44018
 
Now if he were saying only three other Presidents were worse than me ....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (5884)12/17/2011 4:39:12 PM
From: Brumar89   of 44018
 
Obama Cronies Slurping up Taxpayer's Money from 'stimulus' - and from the green energy support .... gee, that doesn't sound "fair" does it. We should probably raise taxes on everyone who makes over $200K to make it fairer.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: quehubo who wrote (5885)12/17/2011 4:40:05 PM
From: Brumar89   of 44018
 
Hear, hear.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5892)12/17/2011 7:03:01 PM
From: quehubo1 Recommendation   of 44018
 
I guess your missing the point that stockholders have gained as companies cut benefits to continue to show improved earnings.

Where does it stop. I work for a power generation company, many energy companies pay well and have good benefits. I have seen many cases where positions are eliminated as full time employees only to hire contractors who dont offer the health care or pensions. Sometimes the same people come back to work in these positions.

Greed and competition are good. But somewhere this needs to be balanced.

You look for numbers, how about a flat federal income tax of 18% for all income over $50,000? I pick this number from some article I read showing that it would draw in much more money than the present system with all the deductions.

I bet the majority of people working and paying taxes would think a flat 18% would be fair. What people dont find fair is the sense that the top 1-3% benefit from a tax code that suits their interests.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: quehubo who wrote (5896)12/17/2011 7:14:07 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 44018
 
What do you propose ... to outlaw companies cutting benefits, hiring contractors? Maybe establish "czars" or commissars to review companies management decisions?


how about a flat federal income tax of 18% for all income over $50,000? I pick this number from some article I read showing that it would draw in much more money than the present system with all the deductions.

I bet the majority of people working and paying taxes would think a flat 18% would be fair. What people dont find fair is the sense that the top 1-3% benefit from a tax code that suits their interests.


OK, I'm okay with a flat tax of 18% over $50K. But I know that almost all of the class warfare 'the 1% are ripping us 99% off' types will consider this to be a tax code that benefits the top 1-3% even more than the current one.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5897)12/17/2011 7:25:10 PM
From: quehubo   of 44018
 
No but I do think the federal government should force medical insurance sales across all 50 states and require all employers to pay a large % of the premium. A basic medical insurance plan with high deductibles and copayments would be good.

I dont know if 18% is a decent revenue getter overall. But no doubt the case could be made clearer with IRS data showing the difference between gross income and AGI. My sense is that the top 1% have a great benefit from deductions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: quehubo who wrote (5898)12/17/2011 7:57:32 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 44018
 
Medical insurance sales across state lines is a good idea, I think, but when you start forcing companies to pay something, you're going to force some companies out of business or you're going to encourage them to use contractors, move somewhere else, etc.

A basic medical insurance plan with high deductibles and copayments would be good.

You may think so, but the folks who want the government more involved with health care don't want high deductibles and copays.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: TimF12/17/2011 11:04:56 PM
1 Recommendation   of 44018
 
European Central Bank Research Shows that Government Spending Undermines Economic Performance
December 11, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent’s politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the dodgy debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies.

So it’s especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

"…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries)."

There are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government).

The second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they’re now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank.

The ECB study, by contrast, shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. Moreover, the research also has a discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government.

"… economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent (the law of diminishing returns operates in addition to, e.g., increased taxation required to finance the government’s growing burden – which has adverse effects on human economic behaviour, namely on consumption decisions)."

...

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Bearcatbob12/18/2011 11:06:07 AM
   of 44018
 
FWIW - I am not a real fan of Michelle Bachman - but she gets an A for standing up today to David Gregory on Meet the Depressed.

Bob

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.