[mike92104]

[quote=squat250]why is my ipod not maneuverable when plugged into the car. it just plays. won’t let me move around. I’ve just been going straight through 4,459 songs on the shuffle…[/quote]

Are you supposed to control it via the car’s stereo?

[mike92104]

Some good info on retrofits:

http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/fliers/F-SEISRETRGD12.pdf

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/corporate-cash-spikes-time-high-185700472.html

Corporate Cash Spikes to All-Time High, 11% of U.S. GDP

This is very old news, corporations have been accumulating cash for years, some data suggests decades:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/corporate-cash-has-been-piling-up-since-1982/

A handful of big companies have debt issues, like GM, but these don’t influence the big picture much. (BTW: Much of GM’s “debt” is unfunded pension obligations and not actual bonds.)

The point is that there is plenty of capital available. Companies have cash, they can easily borrow, the market is strong and they can issue more equity.

But they aren’t doing it because there is no demand.

It’s not taxes and it’s not regulation that are preventing companies from investing. Those are bullshit explanations by a political party that is trying to differentiate themselves and discredit the other team. There is no CEO in America that is choosing not to expand because of taxes or regulation – they are holding back because they are concerned that their markets cannot grow.

(You will hear of CEOs that complain about taxes and regulation in order to be consistent with the party-line, and because it still helps their bottom line to change these policies, but taxes and/or regulation are NOT the driving issue in the economy right now – they are just the political meme from one side of the aisle.)

The capital is there, plenty of it. Nobody is using the capital to expand because not enough consumers are able to buy what corporations are building. There is overwhelming data to support this argument.[/quote]

Can you tie this argument into a reason that taking that excess cash from them in the form of taxation would increase demand?

[mike92104]

We do, what do you want to know?

We got our worms from Vermicoast:

http://vermicoast.com/2011/07/how-to-order-worms-from-vermicoast/

[mike92104]

[quote=blake]City Pension’s Low Returns Hit Budget

[quote]
…
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System earned 0.3 percent on its investments last year, initial data released this week said. The system assumes it will return 7.5 percent on its investments each year.

The investment returns are one of three sources the city uses to pay its pension bills. When returns don’t come in, it needs to come up with the money itself.

0.3 percent!?! My savings account pays more than that. W(where)TF did they invest?

While the investment figures aren’t final, city Chief Operating Officer Jay Goldstone said the city’s pension payment will increase.

This is bad news for the city budget and all the promises that mayoral candidates are making about new initiatives.
…
[/quote]

Is it “investment” if the losses are backstopped by other people money?[/quote]

[mike92104]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]But I could make a pretty strong argument that increasing the top tax rate, particuarly on businesses, would be good for the economy, but not to 90%. Somewhere between 50 and 60% would help. Higher top tax rates encourage businesses to spend money when the government pays for half of it.[/quote]
Alright, lets take a look at what the tax brackets were the last time we saw >60% top rate.

Rate 1981 dollar 2010 dollar
0% <2300
14% 2300 5,444.71
16% 3400 8048.71 
18% 4400 10415.97 
19% 6500 15,387.23
21% 8500 20121.77 
24% 10800 25,566.48
26% 12900 30537.74 
30% 15000 35509.00 
34% 18200 43084.25 
39% 23500 55630.77 
44% 28800 68177.28 
49% 34100 80723.79 
55% 41500 98241.57 
63% 55300 130909.85 
68% 81800 193642.42 
70% 108300 256374.99 

Lets look at what the rates look like in 1963 when top rate was 91%:

Rate 1963 dollar 2011 dollar
20% $0.00 $0.00
22% $2,000.00 $14,086.18
26% $4,000.00 $28,172.36
30% $6,000.00 $42,258.55
34% $8,000.00 $56,344.73
38% $10,000.00 $70,430.91
43% $12,000.00 $84,517.09
47% $14,000.00 $98,603.27
50% $16,000.00 $112,689.45
53% $18,000.00 $126,775.64
56% $20,000.00 $140,861.82
59% $22,000.00 $154,948.00
62% $26,000.00 $183,120.36
65% $32,000.00 $225,378.91
69% $38,000.00 $267,637.45
72% $44,000.00 $309,896.00
75% $50,000.00 $352,154.55
78% $60,000.00 $422,585.45
81% $70,000.00 $493,016.36
84% $80,000.00 $563,447.27
87% $90,000.00 $633,878.18
89% $100,000.00 $704,309.09
90% $150,000.00 $1,056,463.64
91% $200,000.00 $1,408,618.18

As you can see, people making $250k in today's dollar didn't pay 91% back then as well.

What's also interesting in 1963, when you say was good period of growth, the lowest tax rate was 20% from the very first dollar you make. It also ramp up very fast where by the time you get to $112k, the tax rate was 50%.[/quote]

. . . . . and there was very little difference in tax revenue:

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/income-tax-receipts

The problem is spending regardless of who started it.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
I think you just made my point by immediately turning to the “fair share” BS. I also don’t think the lion’s share of the extra spending is on defense, unless Mr Obama really likes defense contractors. Now don’t get me wrong, the Reps did their share of the damage once they let the “Pay-Go” rule expire, but the unprecedented increase I was mentioning began with TARP, and that level of spending has continued year after year since.[/quote]

You do realize that TARP was passed and signed into law during the previous administration?[/quote]

Yes, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I wasn’t assigning blame to anyone, just pointing out where a large increase in spending began and pointing out that that new level of spending has continued.

[mike92104]

[quote=CA renter]Mike, much of that extra spending is on defense; and the vast majority of libs I know detest it. Not only that, but taxes were lowered at the very same time that they (Republicans) were increasing spending.

Again, you can TAX and spend, or you can not tax and not spend; but you cannot spend without taxing. There is no surer way to complete economic disaster than spending without taxing.

The “rich” have been getting a free ride for far too long. They are the ones who benefit most from doing business in and with a country that has property (including IP) protections, rule of law, infrastructure, social safety nets (so they don’t have to live in fortresses and drive around in armored cars), etc. They should be paying a proportionate share.[/quote]

I think you just made my point by immediately turning to the “fair share” BS. I also don’t think the lion’s share of the extra spending is on defense, unless Mr Obama really likes defense contractors. Now don’t get me wrong, the Reps did their share of the damage once they let the “Pay-Go” rule expire, but the unprecedented increase I was mentioning began with TARP, and that level of spending has continued year after year since.

[mike92104]

I think I would have asked them to throw in a maintenance package to offset the added cost of their mistake. If they refused, I would give the car back, but they would have to come get it.

[mike92104]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=sdduuuude][quote=flu]1. How about government spending less defense
2. How about government spending less social entitlement benefits programs.
3. How about government start actually make some of the corporations that pay no taxes at all pay taxes, like somewhat reforming the expatriation corporate tax rules.[/quote]

Here, here !

I’d be glad to pay pay a higher portion of the total costs if the costs were about 20% of what they are now and I’m not even one of the “rich” ones.

The discussion of fair share only hides the real problem.[/quote]

That real problem is quite simple. If you take Bill Clinton’s last balanced budget, increase it by inflation and population growth, the budget would be $2.8 Trillion.

We’re spending $3.8 Trillion.[/quote]

With all the discussion of contrived issues, here’s a good one. Rather than deal with the fact that the government is spending too much, and admit to an unprecedented increase in that spending, the Dems have decided to to distract everyone with this BS “Fair share” crap. It seems to be damned effective too. It seems like all the libs have it their head that if the “rich” would just pay their “fair share” that everything would be fixed.

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey]there’s definitely a blatant use of the “slippery slope” logical fallacy in there.

Here’s a historical fact for ya: Tax rates don’t always go up. They sometimes go down. In fact they’ve gone up and down quite a bit in the past 50 years (and there is little correlation between the direction of change and the party of the president in office at the time.)

So the slippery slope argument can be completely dis-proven by history, i.e. the real world.

[/quote]

A short history of higher taxes

[mike92104]

[quote=davelj][quote=bearishgurl]

I think there are a lot of these families in financial distress only because they were unrealistic about the cost of real life and what could happen to them and NOT due to buying or taking out equity at the peak.[/quote]

I think a lot of families dramatically underestimate the cost of providing for children. Most folks shouldn’t have children – realistically, they can’t afford to provide for them in the manner they view in their mind’s eye; rather, they discover this uncomfortable truth after the fact. Children should be viewed as luxury goods – they’re expensive and completely unnecessary.[/quote]

And not at all environmentally friendly.

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey]

This thread has succumbed to stupidity, as one group wants to actually discuss specific tax policy with specific goals (i.e. balancing the budget) but their voices are drowned out by those crying about “fairness” and being “punished for success” (what an idiotic phrase, btw.) or the old pablum: “all politicians suck.”

My position for the federal budget is basically to implement the Simpson Bowles plan. It’s a workable solution and I believe that Obama is the most likely to make it happen in the next presidential term (unlike Romney who wants to increase military spending and cut taxes, WTF?)

So what’s your position?

And before anyone says “tax the poor,” please do the fucking math first.[/quote]

My position would be that of a Libertarian. Scale back the size and scope of the federal government. This would balance the budget and at the same time give the “they’re all the same” politicians a smaller cookie jar to steal from.

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1]Like I said, mike, they are not the same to me. And I pointed out why.

You seem to agree with me here that Democrats and Republicans are not the same. That was my point.[/quote]

If you were implying that they use different contrived issues to achieve the same goals (lining their own pockets) then yes, there are some differences. However, the difference is only in their tactics.

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?[/quote]

Yes, Democrats are the same as Republicans right down to ending the War in Iraq, to ending don’t ask don’t tell, to affordable care, to protection of a woman’s right to choose, to regulation of the banks that caused the financial crisis, to the Dream Act, to saving American automakers, and on, and on…
[/quote]

Wouldn’t these also be contrived issues aimed at your side of the aisle? [/quote]

Ending wars is a “contrived issue” ?

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.[/quote]

To suddenly switch positions and call for an end to the war they voted for simply because they couldn’t allow a republican president to gain more popularity than he already had, yes. Or how about constantly calling for an end to a war, but not actually doing anything about it?

[Author]

Posts