[SK in CV]

[quote=gandalf]
Regressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.

[/quote]

I have to partially disagree with this. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes in CA are a mishmash because of Prop 13, but they are kind of progressive. (Wealthier people own more expensive homes, their property taxes are higher, prop 13 notwithstanding.) Income taxes are mostly progressive. Loopholes do exist, but not near as many as existed prior to the 80’s.

And “taxing each according to their means” is progressive taxation without the label. It may not elicit the kneejerk reaction from those who think “progressive” or “redistribution” means socialism, but the differences are slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=gandalf]
Regressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.

[/quote]

I have to partially disagree with this. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes in CA are a mishmash because of Prop 13, but they are kind of progressive. (Wealthier people own more expensive homes, their property taxes are higher, prop 13 notwithstanding.) Income taxes are mostly progressive. Loopholes do exist, but not near as many as existed prior to the 80’s.

And “taxing each according to their means” is progressive taxation without the label. It may not elicit the kneejerk reaction from those who think “progressive” or “redistribution” means socialism, but the differences are slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=gandalf]
Regressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.

[/quote]

I have to partially disagree with this. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes in CA are a mishmash because of Prop 13, but they are kind of progressive. (Wealthier people own more expensive homes, their property taxes are higher, prop 13 notwithstanding.) Income taxes are mostly progressive. Loopholes do exist, but not near as many as existed prior to the 80’s.

And “taxing each according to their means” is progressive taxation without the label. It may not elicit the kneejerk reaction from those who think “progressive” or “redistribution” means socialism, but the differences are slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=gandalf]
Regressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.

[/quote]

I have to partially disagree with this. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes in CA are a mishmash because of Prop 13, but they are kind of progressive. (Wealthier people own more expensive homes, their property taxes are higher, prop 13 notwithstanding.) Income taxes are mostly progressive. Loopholes do exist, but not near as many as existed prior to the 80’s.

And “taxing each according to their means” is progressive taxation without the label. It may not elicit the kneejerk reaction from those who think “progressive” or “redistribution” means socialism, but the differences are slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale] When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]

Then you should be happy to know (and supportive) that the proposed administration budget retains most of the important Bush tax cuts that applied to joint filers with income under $250K and single filers with income under $200K. Additionally, (if the budget is approved) many of the other cuts which applied to higher income levels will also be either extended or modified to result in lower taxes, as compared to the law prior to the enactment of the Bush cuts. Maybe a note to your congressperson urging him or her to approve the proposed budget is in order. IF it passes, you won’t have to say screw it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale] When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]

Then you should be happy to know (and supportive) that the proposed administration budget retains most of the important Bush tax cuts that applied to joint filers with income under $250K and single filers with income under $200K. Additionally, (if the budget is approved) many of the other cuts which applied to higher income levels will also be either extended or modified to result in lower taxes, as compared to the law prior to the enactment of the Bush cuts. Maybe a note to your congressperson urging him or her to approve the proposed budget is in order. IF it passes, you won’t have to say screw it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale] When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]

Then you should be happy to know (and supportive) that the proposed administration budget retains most of the important Bush tax cuts that applied to joint filers with income under $250K and single filers with income under $200K. Additionally, (if the budget is approved) many of the other cuts which applied to higher income levels will also be either extended or modified to result in lower taxes, as compared to the law prior to the enactment of the Bush cuts. Maybe a note to your congressperson urging him or her to approve the proposed budget is in order. IF it passes, you won’t have to say screw it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale] When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]

Then you should be happy to know (and supportive) that the proposed administration budget retains most of the important Bush tax cuts that applied to joint filers with income under $250K and single filers with income under $200K. Additionally, (if the budget is approved) many of the other cuts which applied to higher income levels will also be either extended or modified to result in lower taxes, as compared to the law prior to the enactment of the Bush cuts. Maybe a note to your congressperson urging him or her to approve the proposed budget is in order. IF it passes, you won’t have to say screw it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale] When the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year it won’t make quite as much sense to work harder. When you are ‘poor’ and work overtime, you are compensated extra for it (time and a half, double-time). When I work overtime I get the same hourly rate but I get taxed more–the more I work, the less I make per hour.

At some point you just say “screw it”.[/quote]

Then you should be happy to know (and supportive) that the proposed administration budget retains most of the important Bush tax cuts that applied to joint filers with income under $250K and single filers with income under $200K. Additionally, (if the budget is approved) many of the other cuts which applied to higher income levels will also be either extended or modified to result in lower taxes, as compared to the law prior to the enactment of the Bush cuts. Maybe a note to your congressperson urging him or her to approve the proposed budget is in order. IF it passes, you won’t have to say screw it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.[/quote]

I’ll take a swing at that one. To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat.

It’s been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. When they have a popular plan (like real health care reform), rather than do more of it, they do less. They negotiate, make concessions, and get nothing in return. They could propose a bill almost entirely written by republicans and still not get any republican support. (Again, see the HIR bill that DID pass) If there was a prosecutor for such things, it would be political malpractice. And of course, the same element, though to only a slightly lesser extent, that guides the Republicans. Bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.[/quote]

I’ll take a swing at that one. To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat.

It’s been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. When they have a popular plan (like real health care reform), rather than do more of it, they do less. They negotiate, make concessions, and get nothing in return. They could propose a bill almost entirely written by republicans and still not get any republican support. (Again, see the HIR bill that DID pass) If there was a prosecutor for such things, it would be political malpractice. And of course, the same element, though to only a slightly lesser extent, that guides the Republicans. Bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.[/quote]

I’ll take a swing at that one. To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat.

It’s been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. When they have a popular plan (like real health care reform), rather than do more of it, they do less. They negotiate, make concessions, and get nothing in return. They could propose a bill almost entirely written by republicans and still not get any republican support. (Again, see the HIR bill that DID pass) If there was a prosecutor for such things, it would be political malpractice. And of course, the same element, though to only a slightly lesser extent, that guides the Republicans. Bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.[/quote]

I’ll take a swing at that one. To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat.

It’s been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. When they have a popular plan (like real health care reform), rather than do more of it, they do less. They negotiate, make concessions, and get nothing in return. They could propose a bill almost entirely written by republicans and still not get any republican support. (Again, see the HIR bill that DID pass) If there was a prosecutor for such things, it would be political malpractice. And of course, the same element, though to only a slightly lesser extent, that guides the Republicans. Bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.[/quote]

I’ll take a swing at that one. To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat.

It’s been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. When they have a popular plan (like real health care reform), rather than do more of it, they do less. They negotiate, make concessions, and get nothing in return. They could propose a bill almost entirely written by republicans and still not get any republican support. (Again, see the HIR bill that DID pass) If there was a prosecutor for such things, it would be political malpractice. And of course, the same element, though to only a slightly lesser extent, that guides the Republicans. Bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So, in terms of counterparty risk between AIG and Goldman, I think its safe to say that there wasn’t any and I think we can also dispel the notion that Goldman would have gone hat in hand along with the other creditors had AIG gone boom. Given that they were already holding AIG cash and securities (a point Brian seems unable to comprehend) and also given that they would have gone to parties other than AIG to collect on the CDS, the notion of secured versus unsecured debts within the venue of BK becomes moot.[/quote]

I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.

[Author]

Posts