how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to HiDesert
Re: I guess employment has CAPS at Comcast, too said by HiDesert:said by billybobthor:instead of cutting jobs why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Damn greedy CEOs are the problem now a days. They dont need to be making anywhere near what they are making. I believe his dad founded the company and controlling interests still resides in the family. So yes, he can and will continue to loot the company with huge salaries and tens in millions in options/bonuses. He will lay off thousands before he would ever take a cut. Really what needs to change is the federal tax code. Revert it back to the way it was in the seventies and guys like Roberts will have to be satisfied with only 2 million a year.. Since after that most was paid out in taxes. The reason for that tax code was born out of the thirties after the great depression since extremely wealthy families were accruing super normal wealth which in turn makes families powerful politically. The whole tax code was instilled to provide the average Joe a better shot and have more representation in their government. Nothing new here. All this was learned after the crash of 29 and we are about to repeat history.. again. Now we have the top 5 percent income earners represented by the current Bush tax code and control a hugely disproportionate percentage of all assets. Nothing will change here ever.. I can assure you unless national policy and the tax code get changed. Theres no two ways about that. To put it another way, the reason that CEO's used to make 15 to 20 times more then the average worker and more then 500 times more today is because the current US tax code allows for it. With the tax code as it is, it has nurtured an environment of corporate greed to new dimensions. Whats transpired are corporate heads cutting benefits, outsourcing etc.. etc.. adding to the trade imbalance and national debt since it will increase the bottom line and line their own pockets. This national policy and Bush tax code is catching up as many of us know too well. Also corporate deregulation makes it easier for CEO's to loot and the corporate greed spilled over into the entire banking sector which will now make everyone suffer. Also all the deregulation in trade.. with all the wonderful trade agreements really made CEO's very rich.. and many others loose their jobs. But when you allow corporations to have their way with the federal government.. and a federal government that would rather represent a corporate entity (non human being) over a real person.. then you will have big problems. So its human nature to be greedy and given the opportunity, many people would take the millions just like Brian Roberts.. even if it means it hurts the middle class. The trickle down theory that corporations would do the right things.. the line of crap that we have been told since Reagon.. is crap. The only reason things worked out after the great depression was because of a new tax code. Not because greedy individuals such as Brian Roberts will do the right thing. And anyone here who says that its communism to disagree with one person making 500 or 1000 times more then a regular worker is not understanding that supernormal wealth like this is dangerous and undermines democracy since those people can influence government with the power of money and they do and have been doing that for decades now. Your economic theory has too many holes in it. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the 70's with odd and even gas lines, rampant inflation (15% CD's anyone?), and no growth. The top tax rate in 1980 was 70%, and the top 1% of wage earners paid 19% of all taxes. Now with the rate at 36%, the top 1% pay 39% of all the taxes. Whenever you cut the tax brackets, top included, you get the top paying a larger percentage of taxes than before. This is fact, is not in dispute, and has been proven EVERY time it has happened. Kennedy cut from 90% to a lower rate, same thing. Cut cap gains taxes, and MORE cap gains taxes flow into the gov't. Another indisputable fact.
The Great Depression happened because of the Smoot-Tawley Act and protectionism, and the fact that income taxes were RAISED, taking money out of the hands of business which meant no expansion, which meant layoffs, which led to less money to spend on commerce. When you go to protectionism, you are making it so you have fewer people (around the world) to sell to. So protectionism hurts world wide sales, tax increases hurt the domestic end.
Sorry, your version of 1929 is categorically incorrect. | | |
|
|
"The Great Depression happened because of the Smoot-Tawley Act and protectionism, and the fact that income taxes were RAISED, taking money out of the hands of business which meant no expansion, which meant layoffs, which led to less money to spend on commerce. When you go to protectionism, you are making it so you have fewer people (around the world) to sell to. So protectionism hurts world wide sales, tax increases hurt the domestic end.
Sorry, your version of 1929 is categorically incorrect."
Really? As I recall, the unregulated markets back in the twenties allowed investors to buy stock and borrow on margins that were more then stupid.. Kind of like how mortgage bankers became stupidly irresponsible in the last 5 years or so. Your unregulated markets is directly tied to the crash of the stock market in 29 and your unregulated markets today is why Americans have to bail out wall streets sorry as%%'s.
Yes, there was inflation in the seventies.. Know why? Because Johnson's guns and butter policy to completely finance the Vietnam war on debt.. it caught up to us by that time.. So what did we do? Reagan increased our national debt by over two trillion dollars and we spend our way out of that. At the same time we lost our status as being the largests creditor nations to being a huge debtor. Our exports went south in huge exponential magnitudes and most of our industrial base is gone. No my history is crystal clear.
AS for your version of protectionism, we are the only country that has free markets. Most all countries have laws to protect their local markets. We are at a disadvantage having to compete with countries that tax the hell out of our exports and have little protection for human labor laws. Our industry also is at a disadvantage since we expect our employers to pick up the tab on benefits when the rest of the world generally has a single pay health care plan. Which means our companies leave.
The former president of the federal reserve (Greenspan) board said one time many years ago in the seventies that he could avoid a downward economic cycle... like in Carters term.. So once he controlled the federal reserve he degulated banking. And he did avoid a recession.. for a short while.. Now we are going to pay a much higher price. As for your Soot_Tawley Act.. I think you need to dig deeper and see just how people were investing in the markets back then. There was no liquidity.. lots and lots of credit. Kind of like it is today.
The point is, there are economic cycles up and down. Carters term saw a down cycle caused by financing a war. Bush's first term was cycling down generally from too much degulation and job outsourcing and a trade imbalance going through the roof. Both Reagan and Bush thought they could spend their way out of it and deregulate it more. Looking how things are now you are desperate thinking that the supply side economics still has any merit. But its generally excepted that 28 percent of all Americas still believe in the trickle down theory.
And for your information.. the current tax code has made many people fantastically wealthy in recent years.. much of that wealth, can be shown has NOT been reinvested in the states but has been invested offshore. This is is a myth that the conservatives want middle class Americans to believe.
| |
1 edit | said by HiDesert:"The Great Depression happened because of the Smoot-Tawley Act and protectionism, and the fact that income taxes were RAISED, taking money out of the hands of business which meant no expansion, which meant layoffs, which led to less money to spend on commerce. When you go to protectionism, you are making it so you have fewer people (around the world) to sell to. So protectionism hurts world wide sales, tax increases hurt the domestic end. Sorry, your version of 1929 is categorically incorrect." Really? As I recall, the unregulated markets back in the twenties allowed investors to buy stock and borrow on margins that were more then stupid.. Kind of like how mortgage bankers became stupidly irresponsible in the last 5 years or so. Your unregulated markets is directly tied to the crash of the stock market in 29 and your unregulated markets today is why Americans have to bail out wall streets sorry as%%'s. Yes, there was inflation in the seventies.. Know why? Because Johnson's guns and butter policy to completely finance the Vietnam war on debt.. it caught up to us by that time.. So what did we do? Reagan increased our national debt by over two trillion dollars and we spend our way out of that. At the same time we lost our status as being the largests creditor nations to being a huge debtor. Our exports went south in huge exponential magnitudes and most of our industrial base is gone. No my history is crystal clear. AS for your version of protectionism, we are the only country that has free markets. Most all countries have laws to protect their local markets. We are at a disadvantage having to compete with countries that tax the hell out of our exports and have little protection for human labor laws. Our industry also is at a disadvantage since we expect our employers to pick up the tab on benefits when the rest of the world generally has a single pay health care plan. Which means our companies leave. The former president of the federal reserve (Greenspan) board said one time many years ago in the seventies that he could avoid a downward economic cycle... like in Carters term.. So once he controlled the federal reserve he degulated banking. And he did avoid a recession.. for a short while.. Now we are going to pay a much higher price. As for your Soot_Tawley Act.. I think you need to dig deeper and see just how people were investing in the markets back then. There was no liquidity.. lots and lots of credit. Kind of like it is today. The point is, there are economic cycles up and down. Carters term saw a down cycle caused by financing a war. Bush's first term was cycling down generally from too much degulation and job outsourcing and a trade imbalance going through the roof. Both Reagan and Bush thought they could spend their way out of it and deregulate it more. Looking how things are now you are desperate thinking that the supply side economics still has any merit. But its generally excepted that 28 percent of all Americas still believe in the trickle down theory. And for your information.. the current tax code has made many people fantastically wealthy in recent years.. much of that wealth, can be shown has NOT been reinvested in the states but has been invested offshore. This is is a myth that the conservatives want middle class Americans to believe. "my" unregulated markets? They aren't "mine". But you miss the point. The Great Depression didn't have to get to the depths that it did, it did so because of exactly what I mentioned. Margin issues have existed many times since then without 90% declines in the market.
As far as Reagan goes, you conveniently leave out some important facts.
1. Innovation and creation was non-existent due to high tax rates, and that didn't change until he cut taxes. Who on earth would risk everything they own for 10 cents on the dollar? Common sense says no one, you need to incentivize, and if the gov't keeps all of your money and redistributes it, then why bother?
As far as 2 trillion in debt, who controlled both house of Congress back then? Oh yeah, Tip O'Neill and the dems. Under Reagan, gov't income and revenue DOUBLED. YOUR dems managed to outspend that. I won't defend Bush here, so don't go there, he spent way too much also.
Under Reagan, the biggest bull market in history started. As far as the budget deficit as a % of GDP (which you forgot to raise I guess), everyone who knows economics, knows there is a lag on that number of many years. So in the early years of Reagan's term, that number increased. When he left office, it was only .1% higher than when he came in, and declining, but by then, we had a healthy, strong, growing economy that the next TWO presidents benefited by. Remember the lag time.
Your take on why companies leave the U.S. is also flawed. We have the second highest tax rate in the world, only behind Japan. Captial ALWAYS flows to where it will get the best return. Is that in the U.S. with a 39% corp. tax burden, or Hong Kong, which is in the teens?
I am for fair and free trade, there are issues that need to be addressed, but closing off our businesses to other markets is stupid.
Now it sounds like you are against people becoming wealthy. I am against redistribution of wealth so that everyone else can have what I've worked for. Sorry, I will decide where my money goes. But you also artfully dodged the key statistic that no trickle-up theory of economic philosophy wants to touch. Again, when the top rate was 70% under Carter, the top 1% paid 19% of all taxes. Cut that down to where it is today at 36%, and the top 1% pay 39%.
So you do want the wealthy to pay more, and with tax cuts for all, they are. Yet, you are against those tax cuts.
BTW, the Consititution was amended a little less than 100 years ago to allow for the current form of the income tax. It was 1% for all. Those who made more, paid more, everyone was treated equally. My how far we have fallen.
You talk about reinvestment of the wealth, well read above about tax rates. And as far as regulation, EXCESSIVE regulation will impede capital flows because it will go to where it can be done more easily with a better return.
How come you left Clinton out of your deregulation rant, considering he made it easier in 1999 for subprime loans?
Never mind.
The current crisis is not due to deregulation. But if that is your opinion, then the dems are squarely to blame. As said, Bush warned on this in 2001, 2003, and in 2004 a regulator was sent to Congress and got blasted by Frank, Maxine Waters, Meeks, et al. And Franklin Raines said incredibly, that there was no risk in real estate. And McCain's proposal to regulate and overhaul the GSE's was blocked by 3 senators. Obama, Clinton, and Dodd. Check the list of major donations from Fannie. Shocking you will find those 3 at the top of the list.
I would prefer not to post on this topic anymore, this is not a political forum, and this is inappropriate for here. | |
1 edit | Sorry I did not mean to imply that all the banking crisis was due to conservative policy. Your right, the democrats are equally at fault for the sub prime fiasco.. But I still believe Greenspan's decision to deregulate mortage banking and his public announcement years back that Americas SHOULD get variable rate loans was a poor judgement call. Yes he actually said that. If there is one person that could be singled out for much of this problem it would be Greenspan for sure. Since the president of chairman of the federal reserve bank can control the money supply with lowering or increasing the federal discount rate. Deregulation of mortage banking got us to where we are today. Clinton did well to control spending but I agree he added much to the global open market policy whether you agree with that or not.. (I don't). I'll also add there needs to be more financial incentives for companies to do business in the states. Also, its important to remember that personal income tax code after the thirties was created to prevent single families to accrue supernormal wealth since that was shown to make such individuals have undo political influence. This only kicked in after over 2 million in earnings a year. All I am saying is roll back the tax code to where it was under Clinton. Everything is a balance and it went the other way too much. For example, income earners pay a much less tax rate then salaried individuals. Income earners generally comprise of more of the higher class so they consequently have been paying lower taxes which is not fair. Everyone should take a fair share of the tax burden. On the other talk points I hear ya. I don't have to agree with you nor do I want to try to convince you otherwise. Thats why we all vote.. Hopefully everyone turns out this time around..
laters.. | |
1 edit | said by HiDesert:Sorry I did not mean to imply that all the banking crisis was due to conservative policy. Your right, the democrats are equally at fault for the sub prime fiasco.. But I still believe Greenspan's decision to deregulate mortage banking and his public announcement years back that Americas SHOULD get variable rate loans was a poor judgement call. Yes he actually said that. If there is one person that could be singled out for much of this problem it would be Greenspan for sure. Since the president of chairman of the federal reserve bank can control the money supply with lowering or increasing the federal discount rate. Deregulation of mortage banking got us to where we are today. Clinton did well to control spending but I agree he added much to the global open market policy whether you agree with that or not.. (I don't). I'll also add there needs to be more financial incentives for companies to do business in the states. Also, its important to remember that personal income tax code after the thirties was created to prevent single families to accrue supernormal wealth since that was shown to make such individuals have undo political influence. This only kicked in after over 2 million in earnings a year. All I am saying is roll back the tax code to where it was under Clinton. Everything is a balance and it went the other way too much. For example, income earners pay a much less tax rate then salaried individuals. Income earners generally comprise of more of the higher class so they consequently have been paying lower taxes which is not fair. Everyone should take a fair share of the tax burden. On the other talk points I hear ya. I don't have to agree with you nor do I want to try to convince you otherwise. Thats why we all vote.. Hopefully everyone turns out this time around.. laters.. One thing I will definitely strongly agree with you is, Greenspan's role in this. Frankly I have felt he was over-rated for many things, but maybe all fed chiefs are reactionary. It took him until the recession in '90 was actually here to recognize it and drop rates. The Asian currency crisis was aided in part because he was fighting inflation that wasn't nearly what he thought it was, and kept rates too high. Then he was hailed as a genius when he cut them 25 bps? Then he went way too high with rates going into the 2001 recession, which forced them way too low afterwards, and helped spur those ARMS you mentioned. So yes, I do really feel that while this wasn't the only issue, it was a major one. I also felt that rates probably went too high in the last cycle which made those ARMS even more dangerous. I do think that both Fed Chiefs should have had more foresight on that issue.
Sorry for coming off badly if I did, this really was a nice debate though. | |
|
