Already 5 Years Into a Lost Decade

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
However, the Republican machine has all but guaranteed that the current policy will continue, having been very skilled in their use of rhetoric that has succeeded in enlisting the allegiance and support of the very middle class they are screwing. And the Democrats are equally to blame, their lack of action due to complicity or to ignorance, neither being a particularly palatable thought or valid excuse.[/quote]

[quote=gandalf]
Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

[quote=gandalf]
Fox news, democrats suck, down with communism, yak, yak… USA! USA!

It’s amazing. Billionaires and corporations are literally plundering the country like pirates, and our government is helping them do it. Both parties are complicit, but the GOP is leading the charge. Meantime, all these tea party types spew Rush Limbaugh talking points about socialism and poor people, as if that had anything to do with USA economic reality in 2010.[/quote]

I see some common ground in the responses here.

We can’t fix everything all once. The best place to start is at the root cause.

[briansd1]

Some great posts here.

Arraya, I love the virtual Versailles metaphor.

On the question of standard of living, maybe we need to change the measure of quality of life. It shouldn’t be about the endless consumption and discarding of products.

We should put more value on things like leisure, friendships and health (real health, not medication).

In the mean time, like in Japan, where there’s prosperous Tokyo and the rest, we may end up with some prosperous coastal cities vs the rest of America. Unfortunately, we already have pockets of the “Third World” within our own borders (and those people are mostly citizens, not unauthorized immigrants).

[briansd1]

Some great posts here.

Arraya, I love the virtual Versailles metaphor.

On the question of standard of living, maybe we need to change the measure of quality of life. It shouldn’t be about the endless consumption and discarding of products.

We should put more value on things like leisure, friendships and health (real health, not medication).

In the mean time, like in Japan, where there’s prosperous Tokyo and the rest, we may end up with some prosperous coastal cities vs the rest of America. Unfortunately, we already have pockets of the “Third World” within our own borders (and those people are mostly citizens, not unauthorized immigrants).

[briansd1]

Some great posts here.

Arraya, I love the virtual Versailles metaphor.

On the question of standard of living, maybe we need to change the measure of quality of life. It shouldn’t be about the endless consumption and discarding of products.

We should put more value on things like leisure, friendships and health (real health, not medication).

In the mean time, like in Japan, where there’s prosperous Tokyo and the rest, we may end up with some prosperous coastal cities vs the rest of America. Unfortunately, we already have pockets of the “Third World” within our own borders (and those people are mostly citizens, not unauthorized immigrants).

[briansd1]

Some great posts here.

Arraya, I love the virtual Versailles metaphor.

On the question of standard of living, maybe we need to change the measure of quality of life. It shouldn’t be about the endless consumption and discarding of products.

We should put more value on things like leisure, friendships and health (real health, not medication).

In the mean time, like in Japan, where there’s prosperous Tokyo and the rest, we may end up with some prosperous coastal cities vs the rest of America. Unfortunately, we already have pockets of the “Third World” within our own borders (and those people are mostly citizens, not unauthorized immigrants).

[briansd1]

Some great posts here.

Arraya, I love the virtual Versailles metaphor.

On the question of standard of living, maybe we need to change the measure of quality of life. It shouldn’t be about the endless consumption and discarding of products.

We should put more value on things like leisure, friendships and health (real health, not medication).

In the mean time, like in Japan, where there’s prosperous Tokyo and the rest, we may end up with some prosperous coastal cities vs the rest of America. Unfortunately, we already have pockets of the “Third World” within our own borders (and those people are mostly citizens, not unauthorized immigrants).

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Coronita]

I don’t know. I think three a difference between taxing rich “people” versus ensuring corporations are paying for their fair share, aren’t taking advantage of a given situation.

I have no issue with entrepreneurs or for that part silver spoon people having their entitlements, nor do I think the right approach is necessarily to tax heavily those that create jobs and provide opportunities here. Someone takes the risk, they should get the rewards.

I think the issue here is corporations that aren’t held accountable. So for instance, one the few things Obama said that I can agree with:

a)If a corp is going to ship jobs overseas, then the corp should lose part of it’s tax corp tax benefits.
b)If a corp is going to keep jobs here, it can continue with the same level of corp tax benefits.
c)And if corps actually reinvest in the U.S., then it should have increased corp tax benefits (not these pidly $3k amounts for hiring unemployed people),,,

Personally, if It were me, I’d add a few others.

*If you’re a profitable company that is just trying to fatten profits by replacing a domestic employee by moving things offshore, the company should has pay a the cost of that person’s unemployment check for the duration of the person’s unemployment pay period…The traditional, “let’s fatten profits, while dumping the unemployment problem to the taxpayers)” needs to stop….
….It’s a completely different situation if the company isn’t profitable or has to shutdown….

Interestingly, rep’s weren’t the only ones objecting to this….And interestingly, this sort of issue is never formally brought up in an election. The entire sham of this administration is the mantra of “taxing the rich people”, whereby the target of “the rich” isn’t rich by any means. It’s just more middle class people.

Different government officials, same masters…..Have you folks not learned yet, it really doesn’t matter which party is in office?

So for me, it’s not so much about raising taxes as a overall, blanket “wealth redistribution”. You’re not solving the real problem by just taxing more…

It’s about ensuring some entities pay their fair share in their decision making process via the carrot stick, remove carrot stick approach. And for that matter, it’s cyclical…More people employed, more people spend. We could learn a thing or two from what China is doing in terms of trying to generate growth domestically.

California could also learn a few things or two about being a much more friendly business environment…

[Coronita]

I don’t know. I think three a difference between taxing rich “people” versus ensuring corporations are paying for their fair share, aren’t taking advantage of a given situation.

I have no issue with entrepreneurs or for that part silver spoon people having their entitlements, nor do I think the right approach is necessarily to tax heavily those that create jobs and provide opportunities here. Someone takes the risk, they should get the rewards.

I think the issue here is corporations that aren’t held accountable. So for instance, one the few things Obama said that I can agree with:

a)If a corp is going to ship jobs overseas, then the corp should lose part of it’s tax corp tax benefits.
b)If a corp is going to keep jobs here, it can continue with the same level of corp tax benefits.
c)And if corps actually reinvest in the U.S., then it should have increased corp tax benefits (not these pidly $3k amounts for hiring unemployed people),,,

Personally, if It were me, I’d add a few others.

*If you’re a profitable company that is just trying to fatten profits by replacing a domestic employee by moving things offshore, the company should has pay a the cost of that person’s unemployment check for the duration of the person’s unemployment pay period…The traditional, “let’s fatten profits, while dumping the unemployment problem to the taxpayers)” needs to stop….
….It’s a completely different situation if the company isn’t profitable or has to shutdown….

Interestingly, rep’s weren’t the only ones objecting to this….And interestingly, this sort of issue is never formally brought up in an election. The entire sham of this administration is the mantra of “taxing the rich people”, whereby the target of “the rich” isn’t rich by any means. It’s just more middle class people.

Different government officials, same masters…..Have you folks not learned yet, it really doesn’t matter which party is in office?

So for me, it’s not so much about raising taxes as a overall, blanket “wealth redistribution”. You’re not solving the real problem by just taxing more…

It’s about ensuring some entities pay their fair share in their decision making process via the carrot stick, remove carrot stick approach. And for that matter, it’s cyclical…More people employed, more people spend. We could learn a thing or two from what China is doing in terms of trying to generate growth domestically.

California could also learn a few things or two about being a much more friendly business environment…

[Coronita]

I don’t know. I think three a difference between taxing rich “people” versus ensuring corporations are paying for their fair share, aren’t taking advantage of a given situation.

I have no issue with entrepreneurs or for that part silver spoon people having their entitlements, nor do I think the right approach is necessarily to tax heavily those that create jobs and provide opportunities here. Someone takes the risk, they should get the rewards.

I think the issue here is corporations that aren’t held accountable. So for instance, one the few things Obama said that I can agree with:

a)If a corp is going to ship jobs overseas, then the corp should lose part of it’s tax corp tax benefits.
b)If a corp is going to keep jobs here, it can continue with the same level of corp tax benefits.
c)And if corps actually reinvest in the U.S., then it should have increased corp tax benefits (not these pidly $3k amounts for hiring unemployed people),,,

Personally, if It were me, I’d add a few others.

*If you’re a profitable company that is just trying to fatten profits by replacing a domestic employee by moving things offshore, the company should has pay a the cost of that person’s unemployment check for the duration of the person’s unemployment pay period…The traditional, “let’s fatten profits, while dumping the unemployment problem to the taxpayers)” needs to stop….
….It’s a completely different situation if the company isn’t profitable or has to shutdown….

Interestingly, rep’s weren’t the only ones objecting to this….And interestingly, this sort of issue is never formally brought up in an election. The entire sham of this administration is the mantra of “taxing the rich people”, whereby the target of “the rich” isn’t rich by any means. It’s just more middle class people.

Different government officials, same masters…..Have you folks not learned yet, it really doesn’t matter which party is in office?

So for me, it’s not so much about raising taxes as a overall, blanket “wealth redistribution”. You’re not solving the real problem by just taxing more…

It’s about ensuring some entities pay their fair share in their decision making process via the carrot stick, remove carrot stick approach. And for that matter, it’s cyclical…More people employed, more people spend. We could learn a thing or two from what China is doing in terms of trying to generate growth domestically.

California could also learn a few things or two about being a much more friendly business environment…

[Coronita]

I don’t know. I think three a difference between taxing rich “people” versus ensuring corporations are paying for their fair share, aren’t taking advantage of a given situation.

I have no issue with entrepreneurs or for that part silver spoon people having their entitlements, nor do I think the right approach is necessarily to tax heavily those that create jobs and provide opportunities here. Someone takes the risk, they should get the rewards.

I think the issue here is corporations that aren’t held accountable. So for instance, one the few things Obama said that I can agree with:

a)If a corp is going to ship jobs overseas, then the corp should lose part of it’s tax corp tax benefits.
b)If a corp is going to keep jobs here, it can continue with the same level of corp tax benefits.
c)And if corps actually reinvest in the U.S., then it should have increased corp tax benefits (not these pidly $3k amounts for hiring unemployed people),,,

Personally, if It were me, I’d add a few others.

*If you’re a profitable company that is just trying to fatten profits by replacing a domestic employee by moving things offshore, the company should has pay a the cost of that person’s unemployment check for the duration of the person’s unemployment pay period…The traditional, “let’s fatten profits, while dumping the unemployment problem to the taxpayers)” needs to stop….
….It’s a completely different situation if the company isn’t profitable or has to shutdown….

Interestingly, rep’s weren’t the only ones objecting to this….And interestingly, this sort of issue is never formally brought up in an election. The entire sham of this administration is the mantra of “taxing the rich people”, whereby the target of “the rich” isn’t rich by any means. It’s just more middle class people.

Different government officials, same masters…..Have you folks not learned yet, it really doesn’t matter which party is in office?

So for me, it’s not so much about raising taxes as a overall, blanket “wealth redistribution”. You’re not solving the real problem by just taxing more…

It’s about ensuring some entities pay their fair share in their decision making process via the carrot stick, remove carrot stick approach. And for that matter, it’s cyclical…More people employed, more people spend. We could learn a thing or two from what China is doing in terms of trying to generate growth domestically.

California could also learn a few things or two about being a much more friendly business environment…

[Author]

Posts