Fuckity Fuck - McCain's Going to Win

[Weirddave]

@Lobohan

No, the implication is that something is wrong with the system if so few own so much.

Why? Seriously, why? Everyone has equal opportunity, but equal outcome is not guaranteed. So what? Some people are successful, some people fail. That’s how it should be. As long as people aren’t starving in the gutter and 7 year olds aren’t toting coal sacks out of the mine, what is wrong with some people succeeding monumentally?

There should be opportunity for everyone

There is.

and a lot of modern conservatism is based on leveraging the law to make those already wealthy, wealthier.

Everyone tries to leverage the law to their advantage, As long as there is opportunity for everyone, I have no problem with that. You’re decrying the way rich people manipulate the law to preserve what they have while advocating poor people manipulating the law to make rich people give them something they haven’t earned. Don’t you see the hypocrisies in that?

For example that sillyness above about multi-taxing.

That was my sillyness. I admitted that I was weak on point with that, but it was only MHO.

It’s a campaign to make already wealthy people pay less taxes.

No, it’s a campaign to make everyone pay less taxes. You seem to think that successful people should pay more taxes for some reason. Why? What is it about someone who manages to generate more wealth for themselves and more opportunity for others that means they should be taxed more? I really don’t get it. If it’s anything other than class jealousy please tell me what it is?

Deregulation is about making already wealthy companies even more so.

Deregulation is about letting people and companies succeed without government interference. There should never be a penalty attached to success.

None of those things helps a hard working entrepreneurial common man attain great wealth. That’s the problem.

Actually, all of them do.

It should be an even playing field

It IS! It really, really is.

I know wealth breeds wealth. It’s how it works, but they shouldn’t have special rules to make it breed faster at the expense of everyone else.

They don’t have “special rules”. They have rules that are designed to reward them for succeeding, and by succeeding, they provide opportunity for others. A raising tide lifts all boats.

[Princhester]

@Weirddave

Deregulation is about letting people and companies succeed without government interference. There should never be a penalty attached to success.

I think you swallowed a chamber of commerce glossy brochure. Your comment has the same level of meaningless, boosterish, self-fulfilling wank.

Governments don’t regulate to prevent “success” per se.

They just recognise that my freedom to swing my arms stops where your nose starts. They recognise that what I call “liberating deregulation” you call an open slather ability on my part to break your nose. They recognise that what I call “successful armswinging to which no penalty should attach” you call reckless disregard for the life and limb of others.

Such are the compromises that the government of a civil country has to rule upon.

If there’s a good reason why a particular regulation is not a fair compromise between the rights of the person who wants “success” and the rights of those who will be negatively effected by that “success”, then bring it on. But if you start mouthing whiney blanket platitudes in support of deregulation based on anything else being a penalty on success, you’ve lost the argument.

[tagos]

@Weirddave

A raising tide lifts all boats.

Not if some boats are tied down short moor rope bow and stern it doesn’t.

[muttrox]

@muttrox

Curious to see what you think of this cartoon about double taxation.

WeirdDave, I really am curious to see what you think of it. What’s the counter-argument?

[Cisco]

@Princhester

No, I didn’t misread, you are just qualifying and changing tack because you are wrong. Your post is just desperate distraction, handwaving and special pleading. You can level the playing field without authoritarian government. Even the US evens the playing field to some degree. You have welfare, and you have progressive taxation. Yet you do not have authoritarian government.

You don’t even come close to developing anything resembling an argument in support of your earlier proposition by spouting historical non sequiturs.

I find it bizarre that you think, in a thread about American politics, I was not talking about America. And even more bizarre that you call my post - a response to your post which was a distraction - a distraction.

And try to conceptualize this in your head: level the playing field “to some degree” ≠ level the playing field.

And read post #79 before you accuse me of changing my position again.

[mazinger_z]

@muttrox

WeirdDave, I really am curious to see what you think of it. What’s the counter-argument?

Not to speak for ** WeidDave**, but this cartoon employs one fallacy that is often overlooked by those wishing to impose more tax on capital gains, and that is people, and this cartoon, often neglect that buying stock in a corporation is in fact owning the corporation itself. Therefore, the first corporate tax (which is absurdly high) is already felt by the shareholders, and if the shareholder wants to take his money out, he is taxed again, and depending on how long it was in the corporation and his personal tax level, it can be taxed as high as 35% again. Is this fair? I personally think not. Other forms of business do not have this double taxation, why should corporations have it? Is it because they have a lot of money?

The higher the tax rates on stock and dividend payments, the more reluctance to invest. Corporations are arguably the most efficient form form of business out there, able to leverage economies of scale unseen by the small business investor/owner. By adding more tax to corporations, the more we hamstring our economy.

Additionally, because dividend payouts are also taxed (which in my opinion is even worse than taxes on capital gains), there is less incentive for a corporation to pay out dividends because it would be more efficient to keep the money to grow the business. But, with like all things, there is diminishing return to the money invested. This leads to corporate excess that so many on this board is so hotly against. You want “fairness” in the system? Make corporate executive compensation tied to stock performance (it already is, to some degree), but take it a step further and pay them via Restricted Stock Units.

Also, partly due to higher tax rates and stocks not paying out dividends, the stock price starts trading as high as 50x’s (though 10 is often more common, I’m sure there are higher examples, though) of earnings. This just helps (adds fuel to the fire if you will) leads to volatility at best, but more typically bubbles and inflated business cycles.

All these “leftist” arguments lead to confiscatory policies, and not to wealth promotion which is what we really should be the greater overall issue. That is, it’s not that we want to save people from starving and living on the streets, but rather, what can we do to help them earn (oh no, there’s that scary word) their share of wealth. The answer is not simply to give them more money flat out (though it is the most efficient way, and I for one like efficiency).

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Wahh, the poor rich people.

[elucidator]

@Starving Artist

…Common sense and human nature dictates…

There is no arguing with eternal verities like “common sense” and “human nature”. One need not trouble with facts and evidence when one can simply invoke immutable laws of nature. So, that’s all you got? Eternal verities and a dead Scot decision?

[Merijeek]

@elucidator

There is no arguing with eternal verities like “common sense” and “human nature”. One need not trouble with facts and evidence when one can simply invoke immutable laws of nature. So, that’s all you got? Eternal verities and a dead Scot decision?

Anything else requires too much readin’ and cipherin’.

-Joe

[mhendo]

@Starving Artist

Well, I really must not be a very smart conservative…

You’re not right very often, SA, but when you’re right, you’re RIGHT.

[Frank]

@mazinger_z

Therefore, the first corporate tax (which is absurdly high) is already felt by the shareholders, and if the shareholder wants to take his money out, he is taxed again, and depending on how long it was in the corporation and his personal tax level, it can be taxed as high as 35% again. Is this fair? I personally think not. Other forms of business do not have this double taxation, why should corporations have it? Is it because they have a lot of money?

A corporation is a legal person, in part designed to offer a human person who owns part of it some liability against responsibility for the corporation’s actions and liabilities. Fix it so that if GM goes bankrupt, its creditors can go after the stockholders personal assets to make good GM’s debts, and you might have a start of an argument for a break on taxation.

[mazinger_z]

@Frank

A corporation is a legal person, in part designed to offer a human person who owns part of it some liability against responsibility for the corporation’s actions and liabilities. Fix it so that if GM goes bankrupt, its creditors can go after the stockholders personal assets to make good GM’s debts, and you might have a start of an argument for a break on taxation.

Without the protection from liability, the ability to raise capital becomes nigh impossible. The shareholder is already putting the value of the stock at risk in pure monetary terms. He already has his broker fees and inflation cutting into the profit, not to mention that these stockholders are not each making day-to-day individual decisions (i.e. his money is not in his control).

When someone sues the state or the US government, should the citizens bear out the costs such that it puts them into bankruptcy? These shareholders would just declare bankruptcy anyway. For corporations with millions of stocks out there, how would you track everyone down? There is a saying in economics: the Law of Unintended Consequences, I would argue that without protection from liability for the stock holders, corporations would soon cease to exist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yeah, that would be terrible if the corporations ceased to exist.

[jayjay]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Yeah, that would be terrible if the corporations ceased to exist.

Actually, it would. Corporations serve a very useful purpose to society, not just to the shareholders. The concentration of multiple ownership of capital is more or less essential to our modern economy.

I do think, however, that the states should get back to the original concept of the corporation, where the charter can be revoked on bad behavior of the corporation. I also think that the concept of corporate personhood needs to be revisited. It’s been taken far too literally for decades now.

Tying CEO pay to the average (median) pay of employees of the corporation would be nice, too. Say limit CEO pay to 10X the median pay.

[Hamlet]

@CanvasShoes

Awww, poor Ozombie (change…Chaaaange…CHANGECHANGECHANGE)…

I can’t stand McCain, and may be a poor to possibly mediocre prez, but better that than the chaos Ozombie has in store for us. I’ll take the lesser of two evils thanks.

Obama has no concrete tangible solutions, all he, and his young dewy followers keep spouting is “change, change, change”. Oh yeah, and “hope for the future” and a whole paddock full of horsepucky platitudes.

Sheesh, I’d have taken Hillary over both, Kerry even…

I’m going to print this out and tack it to my bulletin board as a nigh but perfect example of the acceptance of right wing talk. Start with the inane namecalling (Ozombie?, you guys can’t do any better), move to stupid hyperbole of the outcome of voting for a Democrat (chaos? Evil?), move on to patently untrue assertions (This site can give you many “concrete tangible solutions”, if you, oh I don’t know, actually want to do a modicum of research), then repeat yourself ad nauseum (the whole mocking of “change” is a few months past its due date). To fit almost all of the typical talk into one post is amazing.

[VinylTurnip]

You forgot “jeez, this guy is even worse than [previous Dem[s] we smeared just as relentlessly]…”

[Frank]

@mazinger_z

Without the protection from liability, the ability to raise capital becomes nigh impossible. The shareholder is already putting the value of the stock at risk in pure monetary terms. He already has his broker fees and inflation cutting into the profit, not to mention that these stockholders are not each making day-to-day individual decisions (i.e. his money is not in his control).

That’s a fair point, and I guess I didn’t think that one all the way through, but taxing the corporation does not appear to affect the ability to raise capital. An investor knows going in that taxation will cut down the profits, thereby reducing dividends (if any) and colaterally affecting the value of the stock. A smart investor takes that into account.

[magellan01]

@mazinger_z

Not to speak for ** WeidDave**, but this cartoon employs one fallacy that is often overlooked by those wishing to impose more tax on capital gains, and that is people, and this cartoon, often neglect that buying stock in a corporation is in fact owning the corporation itself. Therefore, the first corporate tax (which is absurdly high) is already felt by the shareholders, and if the shareholder wants to take his money out, he is taxed again, and depending on how long it was in the corporation and his personal tax level, it can be taxed as high as 35% again. Is this fair? I personally think not. Other forms of business do not have this double taxation, why should corporations have it? Is it because they have a lot of money?

The higher the tax rates on stock and dividend payments, the more reluctance to invest. Corporations are arguably the most efficient form form of business out there, able to leverage economies of scale unseen by the small business investor/owner. By adding more tax to corporations, the more we hamstring our economy.

Additionally, because dividend payouts are also taxed (which in my opinion is even worse than taxes on capital gains), there is less incentive for a corporation to pay out dividends because it would be more efficient to keep the money to grow the business. But, with like all things, there is diminishing return to the money invested. This leads to corporate excess that so many on this board is so hotly against. You want “fairness” in the system? Make corporate executive compensation tied to stock performance (it already is, to some degree), but take it a step further and pay them via Restricted Stock Units.

Also, partly due to higher tax rates and stocks not paying out dividends, the stock price starts trading as high as 50x’s (though 10 is often more common, I’m sure there are higher examples, though) of earnings. This just helps (adds fuel to the fire if you will) leads to volatility at best, but more typically bubbles and inflated business cycles.

All these “leftist” arguments lead to confiscatory policies, and not to wealth promotion which is what we really should be the greater overall issue. That is, it’s not that we want to save people from starving and living on the streets, but rather, what can we do to help them earn (oh no, there’s that scary word) their share of wealth. The answer is not simply to give them more money flat out (though it is the most efficient way, and I for one like efficiency).

Thanks for an excellent post. (Dio’s response proves its validity.) I’d just add that it behooves everyone in the country to have capital be cheap. It makes it better for big corporations ( :eek: ) and also for the start-up entrepreneur in need of capital.

[Algher]

@Frank

That’s a fair point, and I guess I didn’t think that one all the way through, but taxing the corporation does not appear to affect the ability to raise capital. An investor knows going in that taxation will cut down the profits, thereby reducing dividends (if any) and colaterally affecting the value of the stock. A smart investor takes that into account.

In addition, taxes reduce the value of the investment, potentially driving the investment elsewhere. In the same sense, tax breaks improve the investment return. This is why government bonds pay less than corporate bonds - the tax break makes them worth more. This is also why a lot of government debt can be bad - it removes a lot of investor capital from the available pool.

If you have more taxes on corporations, you will make the return on investment less, and more people may choose to purchase government bonds instead. If the risk adjusted rate of return drops too low, the investor dollars dry up.

Keeping capital gains taxes low makes investing in corporations more attractive. If you couple that with a HIGH dividend tax rate, you will get corporations choosing to reinvest rather than pay dividends. If you couple it instead with a lower dividend rate, then you might see more dividend payouts.

Taxes change the investment picture. Changing the investment picture changes the business cycle. Screw up the business cycle too much, and you get unemployment.

None of which has fuck-all to do with the OP (other than in an tangential fashion).

[Frank]

@Algher

None of which has fuck-all to do with the OP (other than in an tangential fashion).

No, no, of course not. But it’s an interesting sidetrack. (I think.)

So, is there any actual evidence that the current taxes on either corporate profits or personal capital gains are driving investments to other options than the stock market?