| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/23/2012 07:44:42 AM · #226 |
how about instead of arguing over school funding and start looking at the real problem with is the way society continues to devalue individual intellectual performance or our youth, it's not until we are older that being smart is valued. the smart young are still cast in a negative light by their peers and label "nerds", and lets not even get into how the black community treats each other.
why dont we create a program where kids can earn scholarship money ALL throughout school. $100 scholarship for every honor honor roll, plus say $1000 every year maintaining a certain GPA.
that would be money well spent in investing in the future of out youth/help struggling households with college and reward students for their intellect.
we need to change the mindset and encourage the students to want to be educated, we cant force them to do it, so we need to create incentives, at least light a fire under the parents to kick them in the ass.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2012 09:33:54 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Similar to the Bain Capital approach.
Let's fire everyone and sell the chairs and books, and then we can afford
Vouchers for those who want to send their kids to boarding school. |
I'm amazed how Bain has gathered such a negative spin. I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's campaign against Bain holds much substance.
//factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
Firing and getting rid of excess employees is a part of every business cycle. There are times of excess, where companies tend to bring on higher head counts, and then times of shortage where companies need to trim. Natural ebb and flow of business. Sure, I hate when my company does mass firings, but it's ultimately what they need to do to satisfy their profit targets. Personally, I think the mass firings are often short-sighted by management... but the short sightedness of most public companies is a direct result of federal regulations (IE: quarterly earning reports and guidance numbers). Management has to react very sharply when working at these smaller time scales in order to 'correct' before the next report. It's like trying to balance a 5" vertical rod on your outstretched hand, vs balancing a 20" rod. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 09:53:17 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If the school doesn't have enough money for decent textbooks and teachers, then I would expect it to underperform and cutting funding will only make the problem worse. |
That's only if you believe that money solves the problems of underperformance. It doesn't. |
In the above scenario, it most certainly does. |
Fire a useless, overpaid administrator, hire a teacher, buy electronic textbooks. Problem solved. |
Yeah, but that's still applying money to the problem, just sourcing it differently... |
No - it's the same amount of money (or potentially less) by firing the administrator. I know for a fact that most schools WASTE money on top-heavy administrations, filled with useless bureaucrats or teachers "warehoused" because they can't teach and can't be fired. I also know how much MY state paid for my older 3 kids to not graduate from public school (~$8700/yr each) vs. how much I paid (in addition to my property taxes) for my younger son to GRADUATE from private school (~$7,500/yr). Less money, MUCH better results. And there are PLENTY of examples of new, non-private education programs that cut costs and OUTPERFORM traditional school programs. Juan Williams just did a special report on it, but I can't find it on the web.
Look at poverty - we have spent over $15 trillion TRILLION on the war on poverty since 1965 and the problem is WORSE. Bottom line: the problem is NOT money. I don't pretend to have all the solutions, nor do I think the GOP has all or even any of them, but I can't ignore the factual reality that I see in front of my face. |
Similar to the Bain Capital approach.
Let's fire everyone and sell the chairs and books, and then we can afford
Vouchers for those who want to send their kids to boarding school. |
Where are you seeing "fire everyone" or "sell the chairs and books"?? Get a grip, Paul. |
Admittedly I took the next step- didn't mean to assume it was your position, But isn't this thread about the "dream team" -isn't that where this talk goes? I'll stay out of it. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 11:29:58 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Similar to the Bain Capital approach.
Let's fire everyone and sell the chairs and books, and then we can afford
Vouchers for those who want to send their kids to boarding school. |
I'm amazed how Bain has gathered such a negative spin. I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's campaign against Bain holds much substance.
//factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
Firing and getting rid of excess employees is a part of every business cycle. There are times of excess, where companies tend to bring on higher head counts, and then times of shortage where companies need to trim. Natural ebb and flow of business. Sure, I hate when my company does mass firings, but it's ultimately what they need to do to satisfy their profit targets. Personally, I think the mass firings are often short-sighted by management... but the short sightedness of most public companies is a direct result of federal regulations (IE: quarterly earning reports and guidance numbers). Management has to react very sharply when working at these smaller time scales in order to 'correct' before the next report. It's like trying to balance a 5" vertical rod on your outstretched hand, vs balancing a 20" rod. |
It didn't start as Obama's fight. It was Rick Perry bringing up "Vulture Capitalism." It was Newt Gingrich calling Romney's actions at Bain exploitative and essentially saying that it was a bunch of rich guys extracting whatever wealth they could out of dying companies(paraphrased.)
Bottom line is, it comes down to whether the undecided voter thinks that this type position makes you a "job creator."
so much for staying out of it. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 01:43:50 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
It didn't start as Obama's fight. It was Rick Perry bringing up "Vulture Capitalism." It was Newt Gingrich calling Romney's actions at Bain exploitative and essentially saying that it was a bunch of rich guys extracting whatever wealth they could out of dying companies(paraphrased.)
Bottom line is, it comes down to whether the undecided voter thinks that this type position makes you a "job creator."
so much for staying out of it. |
Seems the argument didn't work so well for Perry.
Why do you feel that venture capitalism wrings dying companies of their remaining cash? The idea of venture capitalism is that you can offer struggling companies easy access to capital. Capital is how companies subsequently expand and improve. In addition to the access to capital, they offer new management ideas that have obviously worked for the venturists in the past (which is how most get to that lofty point in the first place). No venture capitalist wants to acquire a company and have it fail or die. You want to take a company that has an OK business model, and turn it into one with a great model.
I agree that the label of "job creator" is not particularly accurate, because it's mainly a secondary event. Company struggles, company gets acquired, company gains access to capital and management... company expands and succeeds... company hires more employees. I also think the label of "job creator" doesn't apply to Obama. It's easy to forget... the government does not "create jobs" by any sense of the definition, they can only help create a positive environment for economic growth, which leads to jobs. However the jobless are quick to lean on the government for their every need, including thinking that the government dictates the market.
Message edited by author 2012-08-23 13:46:25. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 01:54:54 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Why do you feel that venture capitalism wrings dying companies of their remaining cash? |
I think you're conflating "venture capitalism" (a good thing) and "vulture capitalism", a bad thing altogether, at least IMO. Vulture capitalism basically happens when speculators buy companies in order to break them up and sell off the assets at a profit. That's not what we usually think of when we think "venture capitalism". |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 02:28:31 PM · #232 |
There were no doubt benevolent aspects of the Venture capital side of Bain, and some "Corporate Raider" aspects. Unfortunately, at a time when the economy flails, yet many companies (Companies that pay more to CEO's than they do in taxes) flaunt how little tax they actually pay- its not a good way to court undecided Middle Class Voters by putting the Bain service on the presidential CV, especially when since forever, Mitt has paid very little taxes, for even less work(14% effective on Capital Gains- "Unearned Income").
- and no argument would work for Perry. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 02:29:43 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Why do you feel that venture capitalism wrings dying companies of their remaining cash? |
I think you're conflating "venture capitalism" (a good thing) and "vulture capitalism", a bad thing altogether, at least IMO. Vulture capitalism basically happens when speculators buy companies in order to break them up and sell off the assets at a profit. That's not what we usually think of when we think "venture capitalism". |
I'm afraid you're trying to paint a label on something that has not been proved. Calling Bain as a vulture capitalist firm is simply not true.
Sure, there's anecdotal evidence for each argument. By sheer definition, venture capitalism (which is what Bain is defined as), involves investing in risky businesses. Businesses that might otherwise not have access to bank loaned funds due to their risks. Obviously, you cannot save them all, which is where the risk lies. Sure, some went into bankruptcy court, but some of those went on to achieve market success after the reorganization.
Here's some good reading on the subject. I do not see anything that clearly shows Bain as a vulture: //online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 02:37:03 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There were no doubt benevolent aspects of the Venture capital side of Bain, and some "Corporate Raider" aspects. Unfortunately, at a time when the economy flails, yet many companies (Companies that pay more to CEO's than they do in taxes) flaunt how little tax they actually pay- its not a good way to court undecided Middle Class Voters by putting the Bain service on the presidential CV, especially when since forever, Mitt has paid very little taxes, for even less work(14% effective on Capital Gains- "Unearned Income").
- and no argument would work for Perry. |
I appreciate your sentiment, but I'm not sure how it's a reflection of Bain. I see it as more of a reflection of how poor our current tax code is.
There's also some reasoning behind lower taxes on capital gains. It's not to benefit the rich guys (since we all probably invest in the stock markets), it's also to benefit the economy. By making the taxes on investment returns lower, people are more likely to invest... and possibly in riskier investments/companies. Which is partly why our economy has stagnated as of late... people and banks are not investing in anything risky right now. There needs to be incentives to invest, which will help economic growth, and subsequently create jobs. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 02:55:12 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
There's also some reasoning behind lower taxes on capital gains. It's not to benefit the rich guys ... |
All the evidence from the past several years says that is exactly the effect -- we HAVE HAD lower capital gains taxes and "tex cuts" since sometime early in W's reign, and the undisputed effect is that the rich have become markedly richer, while everyone else has at best held their ground or had their "real income" (actual buying power) reduced. The rich are sitting on (sheltering) billions of cash, and using it primarily to speculate in search of further wealth; they are clearly not creating jobs with it.
We have tried "trickle-down" more than once, and the effect is consistently that the gap between rich and poor widens, with the lower part of the middle class falling into poverty ... a "rising tide may lift all boats" but only the rich have yachts -- most of us are treading water or clinging to a life raft ... |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 02:56:27 PM · #236 |
If the argument is lower taxes = better economy then why not lower all taxes and not just capital gains? Since nobody is talking about the national debt I'm guessing that's a lower priority.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2012 03:03:35 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
By sheer definition, venture capitalism (which is what Bain is defined as), involves investing in risky businesses. Businesses that might otherwise not have access to bank loaned funds due to their risks. Obviously, you cannot save them all, which is where the risk lies. |
Venture Capital is an umbrella term most often applied to launching a new company. What Bain usually does is a form or Leveraged Buyout called Risk Arbitrage, or at companies like KB Toys Liquidation Arbitrage.
"KB Toys was purchased and taken private in 2000 by the leveraged buyout firm of Bain Capital for $305 million, Bain announced the purchase on Dec. 8, 2000. Only $18 million of the purchase money was cash, the rest was borrowed against the assets of the company. Sixteen months after the buyout, Bain Capital paid itself $85 million in dividends (a 372% return on their investment) in 2002. Two years later, due to increasing competition from national discount chains such as Wal-Mart and Target and its enormous debt, on January 14, 2004, K·B Toys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and closed 365 stores."
Bain is far from the only Risk Arb player. Carl Icahn is probably the best known player, but many institutions play as well. When a company has more value in its component parts than it's stock value, it is ripe for an arbitrage play.
While any arbitrage play can make vast amounts of money (with limited risks) should the play work, it does nothing to create products or employ people. It is a financial play that has to do with asset valuation, and converting those undervalued assets into cash for the player, not providing capital to expand the targeted company. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 03:26:13 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
All the evidence from the past several years says that is exactly the effect -- we HAVE HAD lower capital gains taxes and "tex cuts" since sometime early in W's reign, and the undisputed effect is that the rich have become markedly richer, while everyone else has at best held their ground or had their "real income" (actual buying power) reduced. The rich are sitting on (sheltering) billions of cash, and using it primarily to speculate in search of further wealth; they are clearly not creating jobs with it. |
What he said. You cannot reasonably claim that tax cuts on the wealthy are the best way to create jobs and then turn around and complain about unemployment numbers when we've already had those tax cuts in place and companies have been posting record profits since 2010. Throwing money at the rich (they already have that by definition) REDUCES jobs by redistributing wealth upwards from the lower classes that buy most of the products. Less buying power for most people = less demand = less business opportunities = fewer jobs. Restoring the tax rates to what they already were under Reagan lowers the burden on the working class, which in turn creates demand... and when there's a demand, history tells us that the REAL job creators will seize that opportunity regardless of tax rates. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 03:27:30 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
There's also some reasoning behind lower taxes on capital gains. It's not to benefit the rich guys (since we all probably invest in the stock markets), it's also to benefit the economy. By making the taxes on investment returns lower, people are more likely to invest... |
The capital gains taxes are a much harder hit on those with capital. The average American pays some capital gains (on IRAs and mutual accounts) but for the most wealthy top 1% which holds 35% of investable assets, capital gains is the majority of their tax burden; as opposed to the bottom 80% of the country's citizens which hold 15% (and steadily declining) of the investable assets.
A long as you make your money on your money, capital gains is the vast majority of the tax you will pay. If you use your money to create a company and employ people and sell a product, capital gains will be less of a concern than regular income and payroll taxes.
Why is it in the best interest of America to favor those who use their money purely as a financial tool, and punish those who sell their labor, expertise or products, by asking them to pay a much higher rate of tax on the monies they earn?
Message edited by author 2012-08-23 15:31:14. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 03:50:50 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why is it in the best interest of America to favor those who use their money purely as a financial tool, and punish those who sell their labor, expertise or products, by asking them to pay a much higher rate of tax on the monies they earn? |
I still think the numbers may not completely paint this picture. It's true there are a number of super-wealthy that are going to pay almost exclusive capital gains. But it's hard to target them without collateral damage. Obama paid 26%. Gingrich paid 31%. Increasing the capital gains will only increase their burder as well (though agreed at a lesser increase because the assumption is they have other income as well).
Still, I have a challenge for all those complainers about capital gains etc. We have Romney at 13.9%. Obama at 26%. Gingrich at 31%. It is easy enough to look at last year's tax return and calculate your effective tax rate (total tax divided by total income). I'll be surprised if we have even more than one or two above Romney and I'll eat my shorts if we have anybody above Obama and Gingrich.
Where's the problem then?
EDIT: I'll put my money where my mouth is. It took me 30 seconds to log in to TurboTax and they even calculate it for me. My effective tax rate was 14.35%. I guess I beat Romney, but only barely and I don't come close to Obama and Gingrich. (Interesting. The previous 3 years were 6.86%, 9.25%, 10.73%)
Message edited by author 2012-08-23 15:55:15. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 04:02:56 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why is it in the best interest of America to favor those who use their money purely as a financial tool, and punish those who sell their labor, expertise or products, by asking them to pay a much higher rate of tax on the monies they earn? |
I still think the numbers may not completely paint this picture. It's true there are a number of super-wealthy that are going to pay almost exclusive capital gains. But it's hard to target them without collateral damage. Obama paid 26%. Gingrich paid 31%. Increasing the capital gains will only increase their burder as well (though agreed at a lesser increase because the assumption is they have other income as well).
Still, I have a challenge for all those complainers about capital gains etc. We have Romney at 13.9%. Obama at 26%. Gingrich at 31%. It is easy enough to look at last year's tax return and calculate your effective tax rate (total tax divided by total income). I'll be surprised if we have even more than one or two above Romney and I'll eat my shorts if we have anybody above Obama and Gingrich.
Where's the problem then?
EDIT: I'll put my money where my mouth is. It took me 30 seconds to log in to TurboTax and they even calculate it for me. My effective tax rate was 14.35%. I guess I beat Romney, but only barely and I don't come close to Obama and Gingrich. |
I'll release mine when Mitt comes clean with a few more years.
The problem with the Capital Gains rate is rather than reinforce the notion that hard work can allow you to be "upwardly mobile" it reinforces the all-too-American concept that "you land where you are thrown."
|
|
|
|
08/23/2012 04:10:19 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But it's hard to target them without collateral damage. |
Not really. Tax capital gains and interest as regular income after the first $250,000. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 04:35:55 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's true there are a number of super-wealthy that are going to pay almost exclusive capital gains.Where's the problem then? |
It isn't just the super wealthy, it is a fairly wide sector of the capital economy. Equity partners in investment houses, people who buy and sell real estate those who use their money to make money.
The problem comes when the tax code favors one sector of the economy over another. This is a good thing when it forces capital into areas that those who write the code feel would make the country stronger, but a bad thing when it favors a sector what is not increasing the public good.
The notion of zeroing out cap gains will cause a deficit in the tax roles, so either other taxes go up or the deficit goes up. We have watched long term cap gains taxes go from 25% in the 50s, to 40% in the late 70s to 15% today. The notion of eliminating them completely is unconscionable, and the difference between the current rates and those on simple income is a question of growing the wealth of the middle class or growing the wealth of the already wealthy. I see any favoring the tax liability of one sector over another as social engineering, and I'm not sure what the advantage of squeezing the middle class to the advantage of the upper class would be to the country as a whole. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 04:48:45 PM · #244 |
@Brennan: Don't think for a second I support 0% capital gains tax. I don't. I could even support a raise, but probably not a drastic one. 15% to 20%? I might go for that.
@Shannon: Yes. Quite right. I thought about it later and came to the same conclusion. A stepped tax rate for capital gains just like income wouldn't be hard to implement.
Nobody found their old tax returns? |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 04:59:33 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If the argument is lower taxes = better economy then why not lower all taxes and not just capital gains? Since nobody is talking about the national debt I'm guessing that's a lower priority. |
Maybe you can help me explain this graph? Lower taxes frees up money, boosts the economy, and subsequently increases revenues. Increased taxation slows the economy - I don't think that's easily disputable.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
There's also some reasoning behind lower taxes on capital gains. It's not to benefit the rich guys (since we all probably invest in the stock markets), it's also to benefit the economy. By making the taxes on investment returns lower, people are more likely to invest... |
The capital gains taxes are a much harder hit on those with capital. The average American pays some capital gains (on IRAs and mutual accounts) but for the most wealthy top 1% which holds 35% of investable assets, capital gains is the majority of their tax burden; as opposed to the bottom 80% of the country's citizens which hold 15% (and steadily declining) of the investable assets.
A long as you make your money on your money, capital gains is the vast majority of the tax you will pay. If you use your money to create a company and employ people and sell a product, capital gains will be less of a concern than regular income and payroll taxes.
Why is it in the best interest of America to favor those who use their money purely as a financial tool, and punish those who sell their labor, expertise or products, by asking them to pay a much higher rate of tax on the monies they earn? |
You're ignoring my argument. I'm not for punishing anyone. I don't think tax rates should be raised on anyone, especially in this economy, because it simply will not fix our problems. The numbers easily show it. If you can find ANY article that shows me how raising taxes on the rich will balance the budget, I'm all ears! The net gains from that maneuver are short-lived and negligible when compared to our debt. To create jobs and balance our budget, it will take reform, budget cutting, lower taxes, and time! I think people forget about the time thing, which is one of the biggest variables in the equation.
Originally posted by scalvert:
What he said. You cannot reasonably claim that tax cuts on the wealthy are the best way to create jobs and then turn around and complain about unemployment numbers when we've already had those tax cuts in place and companies have been posting record profits since 2010. Throwing money at the rich (they already have that by definition) REDUCES jobs by redistributing wealth upwards from the lower classes that buy most of the products. Less buying power for most people = less demand = less business opportunities = fewer jobs. Restoring the tax rates to what they already were under Reagan lowers the burden on the working class, which in turn creates demand... and when there's a demand, history tells us that the REAL job creators will seize that opportunity regardless of tax rates. |
I personally like the idea of tax cuts for everyone. In theory it's good though, but we really shouldn't take on more debt while lower taxes would work their magic. The wealthy seem to have a big target painted on them right now, and the class warfare game isn't really fair. It's easy to hate the people that have stuff you want. But basically, our economy needs to free up cash that individuals and banks are "hording". In a volitile climate people and businesses become risk averse. Rich people invest their free money, middle class tends to spend it. We need a combination of both to fix the economy - investment capital and people buying stuff. A balanced approach is what we need. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 05:09:45 PM · #246 |
Guh - no time to participate today. Read through all the latest and here's my position on taxes, FWIW:
- First and foremost, I am not interested in ANY tax increases until the government proves it is responsible and accountable for every last bazillion dollars. Constant reports of them flushing $500m or $100k or even $10k down the toilet does not incline me to want to sign on to any plan to take any more from anyone, rich or poor.
That said, once all the necessary spending cuts are made, then the whole system should be reformed. How? I don't know, but I would like to see a realistic debate that includes some "radical" proposals. One thing I think should be stopped (if we can't end individual taxes altogether) is using business & corporations as the collectors of the individuals' taxes (withholding) and make every individual responsible for writing a check to the gov't each month/qtr/yr, whatever. That would make people MUCH more interested in holding the government accountable and would also give us the ability to stage tax protests when they get out of control.
I'll check back in late tonight. |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 05:13:33 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody found their old tax returns? |
I know exactly where mine is... and the accountant said I could have all of my documents back after the auditors from the tax department were done with it.
They must really find mine interesting since they asked for and were provided all relevant receipts in mid May.
Different country and different tax laws ... so I will not hold you to eating your shorts, but I would bet I far exceed the percentage you allude to. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 05:16:44 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody found their old tax returns? |
I doubt anyone bothered to look. The higher rates paid by Obama and Gingrich already disprove your premise (as if it weren't already common knowledge that capital gains are taxed at rates below earned income). |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 05:17:09 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Guh - no time to participate today. Read through all the latest and here's my position on taxes, FWIW:
- First and foremost, I am not interested in ANY tax increases until the government proves it is responsible and accountable for every last bazillion dollars. Constant reports of them flushing $500m or $100k or even $10k down the toilet does not incline me to want to sign on to any plan to take any more from anyone, rich or poor.
That said, once all the necessary spending cuts are made, then the whole system should be reformed. How? I don't know, but I would like to see a realistic debate that includes some "radical" proposals. One thing I think should be stopped (if we can't end individual taxes altogether) is using business & corporations as the collectors of the individuals' taxes (withholding) and make every individual responsible for writing a check to the gov't each month/qtr/yr, whatever. That would make people MUCH more interested in holding the government accountable and would also give us the ability to stage tax protests when they get out of control.
I'll check back in late tonight. |
America is being robbed, sign now to stop |
|
|
|
08/23/2012 05:17:34 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Different country and different tax laws ... so I will not hold you to eating your shorts, but I would bet I far exceed the percentage you allude to. :O)
Ray |
In Canada we have higher personal income tax and much lower corporate taxes. So you're probably correct in that assumption. |
|
