Jump to content

Union Worker Protests In Wi


Recommended Posts

Why are you guys so worried about how a hedge fund manager is taxed? There are not very many of them, so it really doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Why are you guys so worried about how a hedge fund manager is taxed? There are not very many of them, so it really doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.
Since they make so much, it does matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you guys so worried about how a hedge fund manager is taxed? There are not very many of them, so it really doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.
Yeah, it pisses me off a guy making 5 billion gets a lower tax rate than I do to buy or that that money could be put to good use instead of going after programs that help that needy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because most people are in the 15% - 25% tax bracket range and when you do our sliding scale, their effective tax rate is probably 11% - 19% on average. So, you are saying to the majority of people that they are going to be taxed at a higher rate on their long term investments. They would actually be better off making short term decisions and paying the lower tax rate, which is not good, because having people make decisions in the short term is very volatile for the economy and the markets.
LET'S NOT GET INTO ALL THAT SCIENCE-FICTION STUFF!
That's not what I was referring to, but whatever.MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, I WAS REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS THINK THAT ALL MONEY SHOULD BE IN A BIG POOL AND SPLIT EVENLY!!??! muuuuussfrabbba.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it pisses me off a guy making 5 billion gets a lower tax rate than I do to buy or that that money could be put to good use instead of going after programs that help that needy.
What hedge fund managers are making 5 billion a year? I need to get their number.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said numerous times we need more tax brackets. Whenever these tax issues come up someone says 'well, 250k per year is not that much'. And that is true to a degree. I think the way the ultra wealthy get to shelter their money is borderline criminal and why I don't have a problem with the estate tax as long as the threshold is high (over 5 million). It's not double taxing since they barely paid anything the first time around in many cases.
I am sorry but an estate is the worst most stupid thing we have and IMO is just flat theft.
Why are you guys so worried about how a hedge fund manager is taxed? There are not very many of them, so it really doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.
that is why the 250k to 1m gets screwed the hardest, it is the largest gruop with enough wealth to actually be worth taking....and then you are able to look like Robin hood to the lower incomes. Until we force people to be responsible for themselves we are doomed to failure and if that still isn't becoming clear to some of you it will only get worse.Just remember when the real shit hits the fan and taxes for all incomes go up by a large percentage who is going to hurt the most? Yep them again, just like inflation. The more our goverment tries to help the worse they are going to make it you can take that to the bank.I had lunch with a bleeding heart lib today...he is a client (typical mid manager but he has a fair size budget to spend). We went off on a rant about Wis, NJ, corporate theives...LOL you guys would have thought I was BHO himself - smiling, telling him i just don't understand corp America, crazy times we live in...paid the bill went back to my office and opened the email from his controls person sending me a PO for 400k!!! LOL it was time well spent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it pisses me off a guy making 5 billion gets a lower tax rate than I do to buy or that that money could be put to good use instead of going after programs that help that needy.
taking more of a rich guys money to help the needy when they get pennies on the $ and have turned it into a way of life instead of a helping hand is bad for everyone in the long run. History has proven that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but an estate is the worst most stupid thing we have and IMO is just flat theft.
awesome argument. I'd say 60% of Americans sharing a sliver of wealth is more stupid.
That's not what I was referring to, but whatever.MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, I WAS REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS THINK THAT ALL MONEY SHOULD BE IN A BIG POOL AND SPLIT EVENLY!!??! muuuuussfrabbba.
I thought it was goose-fraba.No one wants it split evenly. There is this tremendous giant area between where we are and evenly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
awesome argument. I'd say 60% of Americans sharing a sliver of wealth is more stupid.
it is an opinion and I feel a fair and accurate one, I wasn't attempting to argue it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it pisses me off a guy making 5 billion gets a lower tax rate than I do to buy or that that money could be put to good use instead of going after programs that help that needy.
My point is Cane was going on a tirade about maybe a couple hundred people? There are much better things to worry about.Aslo, I need that guys number too....on second thought it could be Gupta, so never mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdfThis is from the OCED and in a simple way spells out the level of income and wealth inequality in the US.http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026This page links to a series of interesting articles on income inequality if you want to spend some time reading up.Edit: from the first link.Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in theUnited States. The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000 US$ in purchasing powerparities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have anincome of US$5,800 US$ per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries. The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in mostother OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America. Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Onlyin Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefitssuch as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of householdincomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducinginequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years. Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – hasfallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to23%. Both of these trends are in the opposite direction to those of the other countries in theOECD. Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden andAustralia. Children of poor parents are less likely to become rich than children of rich parents. Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% oftotal net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of totalincome.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Walker's proposed budget cuts funding to technical colleges by 30%. As a part-time technical college instructor with only 2 semesters under my belt, I think that means this is my last semester as an instructor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.
Is this necessarily a bad thing?What I mean is, if the United Forums of FCP created a system of government and whatnot (technical jargon) that everybody agreed was completely fair to everyone and yet we still ended up with the above result over time, would people just shrug and say "it is what it is" or would they push for a little bit of unfairness to the rich to help even things out?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this necessarily a bad thing?What I mean is, if the United Forums of FCP created a system of government and whatnot (technical jargon) that everybody agreed was completely fair to everyone and yet we still ended up with the above result over time, would people just shrug and say "it is what it is" or would they push for a little bit of unfairness to the rich to help even things out?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_...y-un-gini-indexLook at the countries that have the highest levels of income inequality and those that have the lowest and I think it's pretty obvious which ones are better places to live.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdfThis is from the OCED and in a simple way spells out the level of income and wealth inequality in the US.http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026This page links to a series of interesting articles on income inequality if you want to spend some time reading up.Edit: from the first link.Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in theUnited States. The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000 US$ in purchasing powerparities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have anincome of US$5,800 US$ per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries. The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in mostother OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America. Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Onlyin Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefitssuch as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of householdincomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducinginequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years. Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – hasfallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to23%. Both of these trends are in the opposite direction to those of the other countries in theOECD. Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden andAustralia. Children of poor parents are less likely to become rich than children of rich parents. Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% oftotal net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of totalincome.[/quoteSo what causes the inequality and why is it a bad thing? The economy is not a zero-sum game. If the richest 10% were making $83,000 instead of $93,000 it wouldn't mean the poorest 10% were making $15,800 instead of $5,800. I never hear anybody explain why it's such a bad thing without invoking their own arbitrary and subjective idea of "fairness."
Link to post
Share on other sites
I never hear anybody explain why it's such a bad thing without invoking their own arbitrary and subjective idea of "fairness."
I never hear anybody explain why it's a good thing either.nice links, Bob. Kinda blows a hole in Hblask's theory that countries with significantly less income inequality are "hellholes".
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wisconsin residents filed paperwork today to begin a recall of 8 republican senators. They have 90 days to collect enough signatures, which they believe they have. One senator only won their seat by ~184 votes and another by ~1100 votes. If 3 democrats are elected, they will take control of the senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this necessarily a bad thing?What I mean is, if the United Forums of FCP created a system of government and whatnot (technical jargon) that everybody agreed was completely fair to everyone and yet we still ended up with the above result over time, would people just shrug and say "it is what it is" or would they push for a little bit of unfairness to the rich to help even things out?
I guess I didn't really answer your question with my link to the countries inequality list.If that level of perfect fairness without bias existed then in theory things like social mobility would be very high since it wouldn't matter whether your parents had money or not and people from poor families would be just as likely as those from rich families to become rich themselves.If in this utopia of fairness everybody was much richer including the poor in absolute terms then there wouldn't be the justification for taking from the rich to the same extent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wisconsin residents filed paperwork today to begin a recall of 8 republican senators. They have 90 days to collect enough signatures, which they believe they have. One senator only won their seat by ~184 votes and another by ~1100 votes. If 3 democrats are elected, they will take control of the senate.
There are recall petitions out on the missing democratic senators as well
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are recall petitions out on the missing democratic senators as well
This wouldn't surprise me. But even if they get enough signatures, it's unlikely those senators would lose their seats as they are in Democratic districts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I never hear anybody explain why it's a good thing either.nice links, Bob. Kinda blows a hole in Hblask's theory that countries with significantly less income inequality are "hellholes".
It's not a good or bad thing. It's just the natural results of a freeish economy with a large, diverse workforce. I don't hear people arguing that the widening income gap is awesome, just that it's bad, so that's what I'm taking issue with. Again, the economy isn't a zero-sum game. If someone has "too much" it doesn't mean someone else has "too little" because of it. Which is why I don't understand why the income gap is thought to be so inherently bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wisconsin residents filed paperwork today to begin a recall of 8 republican senators. They have 90 days to collect enough signatures, which they believe they have. One senator only won their seat by ~184 votes and another by ~1100 votes. If 3 democrats are elected, they will take control of the senate.
And that would be a beautiful thing, having the unions in control of congress again/ Happy days would be back again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And that would be a beautiful thing, having the unions in control of congress again/ Happy days would be back again.
They weren't exactly in control last time Dems had control of congress.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...