Why can I not get a loan?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it. [/quote]

Here’s the problem with your “parasites”: they are put into place via a board of directors who are voted into these positions by the shareholders – the owners. Yeah, I think a lot of what goes on in large public companies is digusting, but you know what I do about it? I don’t buy their frickin’ stocks! If all shareholders – owners, that is – spent a few hours each year looking over their proxies, voting rationally, and otherwise exercising some prudence over their investments, maybe folks like Thain, et al wouldnt’ be able to rape the companies like they do. Likewise, if everyone just avoided – that is, didn’t buy the stocks of – companies with shitty corporate governance (which is 95% of the big ones), their stocks would go to zero, they wouldn’t have access to capital and they’d either (a) go out of business, or (b) be forced to change their governance, with all that implies. My point is that these compensation problems at large public companies are in large measure the fault of: THE INVESTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BUY THEIR STOCKS AND NOT VOTE THEIR PROXIES PROPERLY. That is, individual investors, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. etc. My personal solution is simple: I don’t invest in companies that don’t do business the way I want it done. Generally this means that the company is very small, I have to know someone on the board personally, I have access to management, and I know that management is open to suggestions on governance matters. Unfortunately this criteria eliminates every company in the S&P 1000.

Now, when you talk about “entrepreneurs who created the businesses” not “making” many multiples more than their employees, you’re talking about “salaries and bonuses” here. But if you were to include the value of the retained earnings in the company and the value of these entrepreneurs’ equity stake, they absolutely make just as many multiples as the “corporatists,” and often more. But they make it through increasing the value of their ownership rather than in “pay.” For example, Warren Buffett’s wealth has not grown through salary, but rather through the value of his ownership stake increasing at a high rate over a long period of time. Have Berkshire’s employees’ pay increased at anything close to the same rate as Buffett’s wealth? Of course not. So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. But I agree with the point I think you’re trying to make in that I’d rather see executive pay take the form of increased ownership – and not in the form of options – as opposed to increased cash compensation. Compensation at the large companies these days is clearly not tied to the long-term performance of the underlying companies. And that’s a big problem.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it. [/quote]

Here’s the problem with your “parasites”: they are put into place via a board of directors who are voted into these positions by the shareholders – the owners. Yeah, I think a lot of what goes on in large public companies is digusting, but you know what I do about it? I don’t buy their frickin’ stocks! If all shareholders – owners, that is – spent a few hours each year looking over their proxies, voting rationally, and otherwise exercising some prudence over their investments, maybe folks like Thain, et al wouldnt’ be able to rape the companies like they do. Likewise, if everyone just avoided – that is, didn’t buy the stocks of – companies with shitty corporate governance (which is 95% of the big ones), their stocks would go to zero, they wouldn’t have access to capital and they’d either (a) go out of business, or (b) be forced to change their governance, with all that implies. My point is that these compensation problems at large public companies are in large measure the fault of: THE INVESTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BUY THEIR STOCKS AND NOT VOTE THEIR PROXIES PROPERLY. That is, individual investors, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. etc. My personal solution is simple: I don’t invest in companies that don’t do business the way I want it done. Generally this means that the company is very small, I have to know someone on the board personally, I have access to management, and I know that management is open to suggestions on governance matters. Unfortunately this criteria eliminates every company in the S&P 1000.

Now, when you talk about “entrepreneurs who created the businesses” not “making” many multiples more than their employees, you’re talking about “salaries and bonuses” here. But if you were to include the value of the retained earnings in the company and the value of these entrepreneurs’ equity stake, they absolutely make just as many multiples as the “corporatists,” and often more. But they make it through increasing the value of their ownership rather than in “pay.” For example, Warren Buffett’s wealth has not grown through salary, but rather through the value of his ownership stake increasing at a high rate over a long period of time. Have Berkshire’s employees’ pay increased at anything close to the same rate as Buffett’s wealth? Of course not. So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. But I agree with the point I think you’re trying to make in that I’d rather see executive pay take the form of increased ownership – and not in the form of options – as opposed to increased cash compensation. Compensation at the large companies these days is clearly not tied to the long-term performance of the underlying companies. And that’s a big problem.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it. [/quote]

Here’s the problem with your “parasites”: they are put into place via a board of directors who are voted into these positions by the shareholders – the owners. Yeah, I think a lot of what goes on in large public companies is digusting, but you know what I do about it? I don’t buy their frickin’ stocks! If all shareholders – owners, that is – spent a few hours each year looking over their proxies, voting rationally, and otherwise exercising some prudence over their investments, maybe folks like Thain, et al wouldnt’ be able to rape the companies like they do. Likewise, if everyone just avoided – that is, didn’t buy the stocks of – companies with shitty corporate governance (which is 95% of the big ones), their stocks would go to zero, they wouldn’t have access to capital and they’d either (a) go out of business, or (b) be forced to change their governance, with all that implies. My point is that these compensation problems at large public companies are in large measure the fault of: THE INVESTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BUY THEIR STOCKS AND NOT VOTE THEIR PROXIES PROPERLY. That is, individual investors, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. etc. My personal solution is simple: I don’t invest in companies that don’t do business the way I want it done. Generally this means that the company is very small, I have to know someone on the board personally, I have access to management, and I know that management is open to suggestions on governance matters. Unfortunately this criteria eliminates every company in the S&P 1000.

Now, when you talk about “entrepreneurs who created the businesses” not “making” many multiples more than their employees, you’re talking about “salaries and bonuses” here. But if you were to include the value of the retained earnings in the company and the value of these entrepreneurs’ equity stake, they absolutely make just as many multiples as the “corporatists,” and often more. But they make it through increasing the value of their ownership rather than in “pay.” For example, Warren Buffett’s wealth has not grown through salary, but rather through the value of his ownership stake increasing at a high rate over a long period of time. Have Berkshire’s employees’ pay increased at anything close to the same rate as Buffett’s wealth? Of course not. So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. But I agree with the point I think you’re trying to make in that I’d rather see executive pay take the form of increased ownership – and not in the form of options – as opposed to increased cash compensation. Compensation at the large companies these days is clearly not tied to the long-term performance of the underlying companies. And that’s a big problem.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it. [/quote]

Here’s the problem with your “parasites”: they are put into place via a board of directors who are voted into these positions by the shareholders – the owners. Yeah, I think a lot of what goes on in large public companies is digusting, but you know what I do about it? I don’t buy their frickin’ stocks! If all shareholders – owners, that is – spent a few hours each year looking over their proxies, voting rationally, and otherwise exercising some prudence over their investments, maybe folks like Thain, et al wouldnt’ be able to rape the companies like they do. Likewise, if everyone just avoided – that is, didn’t buy the stocks of – companies with shitty corporate governance (which is 95% of the big ones), their stocks would go to zero, they wouldn’t have access to capital and they’d either (a) go out of business, or (b) be forced to change their governance, with all that implies. My point is that these compensation problems at large public companies are in large measure the fault of: THE INVESTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BUY THEIR STOCKS AND NOT VOTE THEIR PROXIES PROPERLY. That is, individual investors, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. etc. My personal solution is simple: I don’t invest in companies that don’t do business the way I want it done. Generally this means that the company is very small, I have to know someone on the board personally, I have access to management, and I know that management is open to suggestions on governance matters. Unfortunately this criteria eliminates every company in the S&P 1000.

Now, when you talk about “entrepreneurs who created the businesses” not “making” many multiples more than their employees, you’re talking about “salaries and bonuses” here. But if you were to include the value of the retained earnings in the company and the value of these entrepreneurs’ equity stake, they absolutely make just as many multiples as the “corporatists,” and often more. But they make it through increasing the value of their ownership rather than in “pay.” For example, Warren Buffett’s wealth has not grown through salary, but rather through the value of his ownership stake increasing at a high rate over a long period of time. Have Berkshire’s employees’ pay increased at anything close to the same rate as Buffett’s wealth? Of course not. So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. But I agree with the point I think you’re trying to make in that I’d rather see executive pay take the form of increased ownership – and not in the form of options – as opposed to increased cash compensation. Compensation at the large companies these days is clearly not tied to the long-term performance of the underlying companies. And that’s a big problem.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it. [/quote]

Here’s the problem with your “parasites”: they are put into place via a board of directors who are voted into these positions by the shareholders – the owners. Yeah, I think a lot of what goes on in large public companies is digusting, but you know what I do about it? I don’t buy their frickin’ stocks! If all shareholders – owners, that is – spent a few hours each year looking over their proxies, voting rationally, and otherwise exercising some prudence over their investments, maybe folks like Thain, et al wouldnt’ be able to rape the companies like they do. Likewise, if everyone just avoided – that is, didn’t buy the stocks of – companies with shitty corporate governance (which is 95% of the big ones), their stocks would go to zero, they wouldn’t have access to capital and they’d either (a) go out of business, or (b) be forced to change their governance, with all that implies. My point is that these compensation problems at large public companies are in large measure the fault of: THE INVESTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BUY THEIR STOCKS AND NOT VOTE THEIR PROXIES PROPERLY. That is, individual investors, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. etc. My personal solution is simple: I don’t invest in companies that don’t do business the way I want it done. Generally this means that the company is very small, I have to know someone on the board personally, I have access to management, and I know that management is open to suggestions on governance matters. Unfortunately this criteria eliminates every company in the S&P 1000.

Now, when you talk about “entrepreneurs who created the businesses” not “making” many multiples more than their employees, you’re talking about “salaries and bonuses” here. But if you were to include the value of the retained earnings in the company and the value of these entrepreneurs’ equity stake, they absolutely make just as many multiples as the “corporatists,” and often more. But they make it through increasing the value of their ownership rather than in “pay.” For example, Warren Buffett’s wealth has not grown through salary, but rather through the value of his ownership stake increasing at a high rate over a long period of time. Have Berkshire’s employees’ pay increased at anything close to the same rate as Buffett’s wealth? Of course not. So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. But I agree with the point I think you’re trying to make in that I’d rather see executive pay take the form of increased ownership – and not in the form of options – as opposed to increased cash compensation. Compensation at the large companies these days is clearly not tied to the long-term performance of the underlying companies. And that’s a big problem.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.
[/quote]

First off, again, I have no problem, in theory, with essentially recovering wealth from anyone who took large amounts of money out of any financial institution (or auto company) that took public funds and was responsible for losing a bunch of taxpayer dollars. No problem at all. How it would be done, I have no idea. But in theory…

Personally, I’m not in favor of your “top 1% wealth tax” idea. The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.9% of all federal taxes collected in 2006, so they’re shouldering a huge part of the federal tax burden. Now, I’d like to see the source that says that the wealthiest 1% in the US control 90% of the country’s wealth, because the biggest number I can find is 41%. So, if we’re going to have a rational discussion about this, let’s at least get the numbers straight. (So, again, where are you getting this 90% number?) But I digress.

Any capitalist system is going to result in extremes in income inequality. Freedom results in a wide variance of economic outcomes which compound over time. That’s the nature of the beast. Personally, it doesn’t bother me at all that there are folks out there earning billions of dollars. I could care less as long as it doesn’t impinge on my ability to do my own thing. Another few billion for Bill Gates? I could care less. Now if that money is ultimately found to have been ill-gotten at the expense of the taxpayer, then we should try to recover it. But that’s a different issue.

But the fact is that there are a lot of folks like you, Breeze, who don’t like the idea that some folks make a lot of money – or, more specifically, a lot more money than other folks (re: you). So, in my view, the goal of tax policy is to placate the Breeze And His Ilk (“BAHI,” for short). I pay taxes because I like the foundation of the system we have here in the US and I want to keep it humming along. It ain’t perfect, but it serves me, and most folks, pretty well. So, I want to avoid revolution at the hands of BAHI. So I view the taxes I pay as ransom paid to BAHI to keep the system humming along. I know a lot of it gets wasted in the bureaucracy, but that’s not my business.

So, if the Officialdom were to decide that only a wealth tax could keep BAHI from revolting, then so be it. Anything to save the system. But do I personally really want any portion of the wealthiest’s wealth? No. Other than these financial freaks, for the most part they earned or inherited it. In either case, it’s not mine and none of my business.

I guess I’m not bitter enough about other peoples billions. But that’s just me.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.
[/quote]

First off, again, I have no problem, in theory, with essentially recovering wealth from anyone who took large amounts of money out of any financial institution (or auto company) that took public funds and was responsible for losing a bunch of taxpayer dollars. No problem at all. How it would be done, I have no idea. But in theory…

Personally, I’m not in favor of your “top 1% wealth tax” idea. The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.9% of all federal taxes collected in 2006, so they’re shouldering a huge part of the federal tax burden. Now, I’d like to see the source that says that the wealthiest 1% in the US control 90% of the country’s wealth, because the biggest number I can find is 41%. So, if we’re going to have a rational discussion about this, let’s at least get the numbers straight. (So, again, where are you getting this 90% number?) But I digress.

Any capitalist system is going to result in extremes in income inequality. Freedom results in a wide variance of economic outcomes which compound over time. That’s the nature of the beast. Personally, it doesn’t bother me at all that there are folks out there earning billions of dollars. I could care less as long as it doesn’t impinge on my ability to do my own thing. Another few billion for Bill Gates? I could care less. Now if that money is ultimately found to have been ill-gotten at the expense of the taxpayer, then we should try to recover it. But that’s a different issue.

But the fact is that there are a lot of folks like you, Breeze, who don’t like the idea that some folks make a lot of money – or, more specifically, a lot more money than other folks (re: you). So, in my view, the goal of tax policy is to placate the Breeze And His Ilk (“BAHI,” for short). I pay taxes because I like the foundation of the system we have here in the US and I want to keep it humming along. It ain’t perfect, but it serves me, and most folks, pretty well. So, I want to avoid revolution at the hands of BAHI. So I view the taxes I pay as ransom paid to BAHI to keep the system humming along. I know a lot of it gets wasted in the bureaucracy, but that’s not my business.

So, if the Officialdom were to decide that only a wealth tax could keep BAHI from revolting, then so be it. Anything to save the system. But do I personally really want any portion of the wealthiest’s wealth? No. Other than these financial freaks, for the most part they earned or inherited it. In either case, it’s not mine and none of my business.

I guess I’m not bitter enough about other peoples billions. But that’s just me.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.
[/quote]

First off, again, I have no problem, in theory, with essentially recovering wealth from anyone who took large amounts of money out of any financial institution (or auto company) that took public funds and was responsible for losing a bunch of taxpayer dollars. No problem at all. How it would be done, I have no idea. But in theory…

Personally, I’m not in favor of your “top 1% wealth tax” idea. The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.9% of all federal taxes collected in 2006, so they’re shouldering a huge part of the federal tax burden. Now, I’d like to see the source that says that the wealthiest 1% in the US control 90% of the country’s wealth, because the biggest number I can find is 41%. So, if we’re going to have a rational discussion about this, let’s at least get the numbers straight. (So, again, where are you getting this 90% number?) But I digress.

Any capitalist system is going to result in extremes in income inequality. Freedom results in a wide variance of economic outcomes which compound over time. That’s the nature of the beast. Personally, it doesn’t bother me at all that there are folks out there earning billions of dollars. I could care less as long as it doesn’t impinge on my ability to do my own thing. Another few billion for Bill Gates? I could care less. Now if that money is ultimately found to have been ill-gotten at the expense of the taxpayer, then we should try to recover it. But that’s a different issue.

But the fact is that there are a lot of folks like you, Breeze, who don’t like the idea that some folks make a lot of money – or, more specifically, a lot more money than other folks (re: you). So, in my view, the goal of tax policy is to placate the Breeze And His Ilk (“BAHI,” for short). I pay taxes because I like the foundation of the system we have here in the US and I want to keep it humming along. It ain’t perfect, but it serves me, and most folks, pretty well. So, I want to avoid revolution at the hands of BAHI. So I view the taxes I pay as ransom paid to BAHI to keep the system humming along. I know a lot of it gets wasted in the bureaucracy, but that’s not my business.

So, if the Officialdom were to decide that only a wealth tax could keep BAHI from revolting, then so be it. Anything to save the system. But do I personally really want any portion of the wealthiest’s wealth? No. Other than these financial freaks, for the most part they earned or inherited it. In either case, it’s not mine and none of my business.

I guess I’m not bitter enough about other peoples billions. But that’s just me.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.
[/quote]

First off, again, I have no problem, in theory, with essentially recovering wealth from anyone who took large amounts of money out of any financial institution (or auto company) that took public funds and was responsible for losing a bunch of taxpayer dollars. No problem at all. How it would be done, I have no idea. But in theory…

Personally, I’m not in favor of your “top 1% wealth tax” idea. The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.9% of all federal taxes collected in 2006, so they’re shouldering a huge part of the federal tax burden. Now, I’d like to see the source that says that the wealthiest 1% in the US control 90% of the country’s wealth, because the biggest number I can find is 41%. So, if we’re going to have a rational discussion about this, let’s at least get the numbers straight. (So, again, where are you getting this 90% number?) But I digress.

Any capitalist system is going to result in extremes in income inequality. Freedom results in a wide variance of economic outcomes which compound over time. That’s the nature of the beast. Personally, it doesn’t bother me at all that there are folks out there earning billions of dollars. I could care less as long as it doesn’t impinge on my ability to do my own thing. Another few billion for Bill Gates? I could care less. Now if that money is ultimately found to have been ill-gotten at the expense of the taxpayer, then we should try to recover it. But that’s a different issue.

But the fact is that there are a lot of folks like you, Breeze, who don’t like the idea that some folks make a lot of money – or, more specifically, a lot more money than other folks (re: you). So, in my view, the goal of tax policy is to placate the Breeze And His Ilk (“BAHI,” for short). I pay taxes because I like the foundation of the system we have here in the US and I want to keep it humming along. It ain’t perfect, but it serves me, and most folks, pretty well. So, I want to avoid revolution at the hands of BAHI. So I view the taxes I pay as ransom paid to BAHI to keep the system humming along. I know a lot of it gets wasted in the bureaucracy, but that’s not my business.

So, if the Officialdom were to decide that only a wealth tax could keep BAHI from revolting, then so be it. Anything to save the system. But do I personally really want any portion of the wealthiest’s wealth? No. Other than these financial freaks, for the most part they earned or inherited it. In either case, it’s not mine and none of my business.

I guess I’m not bitter enough about other peoples billions. But that’s just me.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=davelj]I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.
[/quote]

First off, again, I have no problem, in theory, with essentially recovering wealth from anyone who took large amounts of money out of any financial institution (or auto company) that took public funds and was responsible for losing a bunch of taxpayer dollars. No problem at all. How it would be done, I have no idea. But in theory…

Personally, I’m not in favor of your “top 1% wealth tax” idea. The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.9% of all federal taxes collected in 2006, so they’re shouldering a huge part of the federal tax burden. Now, I’d like to see the source that says that the wealthiest 1% in the US control 90% of the country’s wealth, because the biggest number I can find is 41%. So, if we’re going to have a rational discussion about this, let’s at least get the numbers straight. (So, again, where are you getting this 90% number?) But I digress.

Any capitalist system is going to result in extremes in income inequality. Freedom results in a wide variance of economic outcomes which compound over time. That’s the nature of the beast. Personally, it doesn’t bother me at all that there are folks out there earning billions of dollars. I could care less as long as it doesn’t impinge on my ability to do my own thing. Another few billion for Bill Gates? I could care less. Now if that money is ultimately found to have been ill-gotten at the expense of the taxpayer, then we should try to recover it. But that’s a different issue.

But the fact is that there are a lot of folks like you, Breeze, who don’t like the idea that some folks make a lot of money – or, more specifically, a lot more money than other folks (re: you). So, in my view, the goal of tax policy is to placate the Breeze And His Ilk (“BAHI,” for short). I pay taxes because I like the foundation of the system we have here in the US and I want to keep it humming along. It ain’t perfect, but it serves me, and most folks, pretty well. So, I want to avoid revolution at the hands of BAHI. So I view the taxes I pay as ransom paid to BAHI to keep the system humming along. I know a lot of it gets wasted in the bureaucracy, but that’s not my business.

So, if the Officialdom were to decide that only a wealth tax could keep BAHI from revolting, then so be it. Anything to save the system. But do I personally really want any portion of the wealthiest’s wealth? No. Other than these financial freaks, for the most part they earned or inherited it. In either case, it’s not mine and none of my business.

I guess I’m not bitter enough about other peoples billions. But that’s just me.

[equalizer]

davelj

the problem is mutual fund and pension managers always vote per bod wishes, it other peoples money they couldnt give a damn as long as they get their 1%+ fee every year. dont forget that prof jeremy siegel basically said to stay away from most tech stocks cause they dole out all profits to employee options diluting ind investor.

[equalizer]

davelj

the problem is mutual fund and pension managers always vote per bod wishes, it other peoples money they couldnt give a damn as long as they get their 1%+ fee every year. dont forget that prof jeremy siegel basically said to stay away from most tech stocks cause they dole out all profits to employee options diluting ind investor.

[equalizer]

davelj

the problem is mutual fund and pension managers always vote per bod wishes, it other peoples money they couldnt give a damn as long as they get their 1%+ fee every year. dont forget that prof jeremy siegel basically said to stay away from most tech stocks cause they dole out all profits to employee options diluting ind investor.

[equalizer]

davelj

the problem is mutual fund and pension managers always vote per bod wishes, it other peoples money they couldnt give a damn as long as they get their 1%+ fee every year. dont forget that prof jeremy siegel basically said to stay away from most tech stocks cause they dole out all profits to employee options diluting ind investor.

[Author]

Posts