Finally losing it's shine?

[Tunnelcat]

You all know me, that I like to take swipes at Capitalists and their beloved system, so if the Swiss people are doing this, who have been labeled as ring wing by most European standards, have they begun the first revolt against the excesses of pure Capitalism?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... cutive-pay

Is Capitalism so broke and imbedded with our political system that it can't even be fixed?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/capita ... 2013-02-23

[callmeslick]

the only way to really address what the Swiss are trying to do solo is to make uniform taxation rules across the Western World, and punitive taxation for those who offshore into miscreant small states. The problem, for example, did not exist when the US had a sliding income taxation rate that went up to over 90 percent for income over what would today be equivalent to around 1.5 million dollars. This kept salaries in check, and in turn, focused compensation on longterm stock options, which in turn focused corporate planning on longterm planning and the net result was a boom in true middle class wage jobs, and long term job stability.
My bottom line is this: Capitalism, when unchecked, is a ticket back to feudalism or something close. On the other hand, no other economic model yet produced is an better for the populace.......

[Will Robinson]

The Swiss are mad about the 'American version' of big paydays for executives so they are adopting the ridiculously ineffective american-assault-weapons-ban type legislation to combat the outrageous pay! Lol! Irony is dripping all over with that one.

Let them have fun with that as the money moves right on out of there and parks somewhere else without ever stopping the high level of compensation to the execs...

[Tunnelcat]

That's right Will. That's the trouble with what the Swiss are up to. Nations can play the game against each other and the "salary pigs" will just pack up and move elsewhere. There is no level playing field across the globe to stop that from happening.

I also support Capitalism, it has allowed unprecedented prosperity and growth, for the U.S. especially. But things only work fairly when everyone and every nation plays by the same set of rules. Things also work more fairly if resources are unlimited and easily accessible to all nations. But resources are NOT unlimited and not easily accessible, nor are they evenly distributed, so we all end up taking what we want or fighting for them to get what we want. That's now changing for the U.S. There will always be those who will do something better, or cheaper, or have more muscle than someone else, because that's how the game's played.

Our prosperity has come at a cost to those third world nations we've been taking from since WWII. However, the tide is starting to turn against us and it's our own fault. Someone else wants to be king, I'm guessing China, so we won't be IT anymore. We're soon going to be "the someone else", and our political system is accelerating that outcome.

[Will Robinson]

That's right Will. That's the trouble with what the Swiss are up to. Nations can play the game against each other and the "salary pigs" will just pack up and move elsewhere. There is no level playing field across the globe to stop that from happening.

I also support Capitalism, it has allowed unprecedented prosperity and growth, for the U.S. especially. But things only work fairly when everyone and every nation plays by the same set of rules. Things also work more fairly if resources are unlimited and easily accessible to all nations. But resources are NOT unlimited and not easily accessible, nor are they evenly distributed, so we all end up taking what we want or fighting for them to get what we want. That's now changing for the U.S. There will always be those who will do something better, or cheaper, or have more muscle than someone else, because that's how the game's played.

Our prosperity has come at a cost to those third world nations we've been taking from since WWII. However, the tide is starting to turn against us and it's our own fault. Someone else wants to be king, I'm guessing China, so we won't be IT anymore. We're soon going to be "the someone else", and our political system is accelerating that outcome.

The condensed version of your rant is we need to socialize the world or else we are going to be taken over by communist China...

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[callmeslick]

or, you can go with my version, or else live with the consequences of the current trend.

[Will Robinson]

or, you can go with my version, or else live with the consequences of the current trend.

Your assessment seems pretty accurate but even with the sliding scale going to such an extreme I don't think the execs had a hard time getting around it to a great degree. When you create the unwritten rules that the government rule makers have to work under you can create tax free compensation avenues at will....

I remember my parents going to stay in a villa in Spain owned by a business associate.
It rivals one of those uber bad guy lairs in the James Bond movies. The 'villa' was a palatial estate with its own tunnel system that led down through the cliff face of the seaside mountain it was built on top of. There was a grotto at the lower level and boat dock with stairs carved into the stone face at and below the oceans level so you could access the boats at any tide. The whole place was staffed 365 days a year even though it was only 'lived in' a fraction of the time.
It was owned by phantom corp that kept it for a rich guy who was one of those execs we're talking about.
He ended up moving there to avoid the IRS many years later....many multi-millions later...

But, yes, your methods sure beat TC's fantasy that there can be a world wide definition of "fair" with regard to pay scales or any kind of monetary governance. The world has no place for 'fair' to exist! That is a concept that the definition of can only apply within the boundaries of a culture. The definition falls apart when you try to carry it out into another culture.

[callmeslick]

Will, I hear you on your example, but suspect that was a bit past the period I was talking about(1955-65). When I was a kid, the tax laws pushed compensation for execs(my dad was a senior exec at a major chemical corporation) towards stock options, which become profitable only when the company does well over a few years. His salary, while more than adequate to live quite well, was only around 8-10 times what they started out Junior Chemists at. The president of the company might have seen 25X starting pay, I would estimate. This is far different than what we see today, both in the US and around the Western World. However, it would, in a global age, require ALL Western nations to unify their taxation schemes or else many corporate boards would move HQ to the friendlier climate. The whole mess around the Swiss proposal is this: if the stockholders vote for compensation, nothing will change, because in most cases, the board and the executive team control the majority of shares. The proposals TC makes, although well-meaning, would, as you state, just lead to a game of HQ musical chairs, tending toward the low bidders. It isn't an easy solution, and too much intertwining of corporate boards makes the problem more pronounced. No easy fix that I see......

[Tunnelcat]

The condensed version of your rant is we need to socialize the world or else we are going to be taken over by communist China...

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Oh for criss sake! I'm not a socialist! I'm only against laissez faire, or winner take all, Capitalism. I'm also against a political system that gets taken over by self-serving Capitalists. The government is supposed to be of the people and for the people, not the corporations and special interests.

[Will Robinson]

You don't have to be a socialist to have suggested the only fair alternative is the equivalent of socialism....

.... But things only work fairly when everyone and every nation plays by the same set of rules. Things also work more fairly if resources are unlimited and easily accessible to all nations. But resources are NOT unlimited and not easily accessible, nor are they evenly distributed, so we all end up taking what we want or fighting for them to get what we want....

It's not an attack on your character, it is merely highlighting your use of one extreme to offset another extreme. Fortunately there is a lot of middle ground between the two and it isn't too hard to make it comfortable for all. The easiest way is to dump the IRS and impliment a simple tax system that doesn't allow politicians to stuff it full of subsidies for their donors! Real campaign finance reform needs to be implimented at the same time.

It really doesn't matter if a corp wants to pay an outrageous amount to an exec as long as all compensation is taxed. How much money you can earn from who ever will hire you relative to how much anyone else can earn is not a factor in the context of what government should take for tax revenue. Beyond what they should take they need to back the F off. The system isn't being taken over by capitalists, it is being sold out by politicians to capitalists! That is a distinction that you need to recognize because your solution, and the Swiss solution, is to give more power to the politicians! Bad solution!

[Tunnelcat]

I know that you're for a flat tax. I am too actually, after slogging through my tax returns last week. But I think you at one time extolled the "Fair Tax Act", which is a flat consumption tax. Argue all you want, but a consumption taxes hit the poor the hardest because they are the ones who spend most of their income on consumables. If you want a flat tax, make it a fixed percentage of income, even investment income, for all income levels. No loopholes, no deductions, nada.

I actually liked the tax system Reagan set up when he was in office. Those years were the simplest to fill out and understand. Ever since then though, the politicians, both Democratic and Republican, have slowly re-clogged up the code with loopholes and special interest crap, making it a bloated, hard to comprehend mess.

[Will Robinson]

The Fairtax isn't a straight consumption tax. It has a 'prebate' component, a monthly check that pays everyone, in advance, the equivalent of all the tax they would pay on essentials....food, clothing, shelter, etc. in the coming month.

That effectively makes the Fairtax progressive by removing some or all of the burden of tax from the lower income and poor and it taxes more of the capital of the wealthy.
That's a very big difference that you missed....again....

[Tunnelcat]

No quite. Those prebates would help the poor, but the middle class would get screwed. And none of this would even come close to funding the government.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... ?ID=901139

[Will Robinson]

No quite. Those prebates would help the poor, but the middle class would get screwed. And none of this would even come close to funding the government.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... ?ID=901139

TC, that link is completely full of crap. The authors of the Fairtax have released two books refuting all that and much, much, more. You could probably read much of it online for free at Amazon or somewhere like that and see just how badly that link is lying to you.

If you look for someone to support your doubts you can always find them. It doesn't mean you have found the truth however. Politics is an industry built largely with that ploy.

The Fairtax, when introduced was set up to be revenue neutral. That means it did pay for everything the current system paid for.
It also brings a lot of money and industry home from offshore...which creates jobs and increases revenue....
So although it starts out revenue neutral it quickly becomes revenue positive without increasing tax rate.

It also requires congress to vote to cut its own throat as far as its ability to provide exemptions and corporate subsidies in exchange for campaign donations. So it would require the people to demand it and for them to investigate the details instead of accepting what the status quo politicians from both parties will say to discourage you.

That last part pretty much leaves you out because you perpetually seek out any rebuttal you can find to anything a conservative offers and then just declare the case closed.

By the way, I don't care if the Fairtax is the system. Just that whatever the system is includes the repeal of the 16th amendment so the politicians cant sell us down the river for their own personal gain and that it taxes all compensation in some way.

If you want to truly spare the middle class you have to end the status quo and that can only happen with a replacement system, not a revamp of the same system.

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

[Will Robinson]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

The current system does nothing to alleviate many of the problems you think you know of yet it also doesn't offer the positives that the FairTax does provide. So right there your opposition to it is a stupid position to take just based on simple math!

Then there is the whole problem that you are citing many 'flaws' that don't exist so your opposition is built on willful ignorance.
You keep declaring you see problems that are based on your own uninformed bias. Why not go read one of the books that debunk so much of what you think you know? Or just continue to be a willing pawn on some kings board....

[callmeslick]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

to the highlighted part....you are exactly correct. The big-ticket purchases will simply be made overseas. Right now, for instance, I buy electronics, whenever possible, from local brick and morter businesses. I am talking about high-end audio equipment. I could buy that stuff overseas just as easily, and if it was significant to me to be saving a consumption tax on, say, a $20,000 pair of speakers or similar price amplification or the like, I would do it. Now, would I, specifically change my preferences? Maybe not, for the common good, but I doubt many are that altruistic. When they tried to have a luxury tax here, I can remember how it killed domestic yacht business. Everyone I know just started buying watercraft in the Bahamas or from British brokers like Opal Marine.

[Will Robinson]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

to the highlighted part....you are exactly correct. The big-ticket purchases will simply be made overseas. Right now, for instance, I buy electronics, whenever possible, from local brick and morter businesses. I am talking about high-end audio equipment. I could buy that stuff overseas just as easily, and if it was significant to me to be saving a consumption tax on, say, a $20,000 pair of speakers or similar price amplification or the like, I would do it. Now, would I, specifically change my preferences? Maybe not, for the common good, but I doubt many are that altruistic. When they tried to have a luxury tax here, I can remember how it killed domestic yacht business. Everyone I know just started buying watercraft in the Bahamas or from British brokers like Opal Marine.

The point you two are focusing on is irrelevant. Nowhere does the FairTax claim that all potential revenue needs will forever be met by the tax on spending by the rich! The system, if put in place today would be revenue nuetral to begin and create windfalls in certain areas...not one time windfalls of lump sums but rather, much more substantial positives like bringing foreign investment dollars here...bringing money that is currently sent offshore back here...
And the mechanism is there to make it progressive to protect the poor and middle class. And no, it doesn't tax/penalize the rich to the point of creating financial equality. If that is your goal TC then just join the communist/socialist movement and stop pretending capitalism is supposed to be able to provide that kind of result.

It doesn't wipe out all possible evasion of taxation just like the current system never will either. It does wipe out the politicians ability to sell exemptions and compromise otherwise sound legislation and regulation with corporate subsidies etc.
Even at it's worst it is a net positive improvement over the current cluster- ★■◆● of corruption and graft that our IRS code has become.

You two are raising a strawman argument against something that you dont understand. Like neanderthals shrinking from an open flame.

[callmeslick]

fwiw, I am not raising a strawman, just agreeing with one part of TCs assessment. For the record, I support a flat tax on all income of all types, with an exemption for the first $25,000 or so. Then, with that in place, you make your budget, estimate the necessary rate to pay for the budget, plus a little extra for rainy days when income gets clobbered, or disasters and war pop up, and you are good to go.

[Will Robinson]

fwiw, I am not raising a strawman, just agreeing with one part of TCs assessment. For the record, I support a flat tax on all income of all types, with an exemption for the first $25,000 or so. Then, with that in place, you make your budget, estimate the necessary rate to pay for the budget, plus a little extra for rainy days when income gets clobbered, or disasters and war pop up, and you are good to go.

Her assessment that you agreed with implies the premise that the Fairtax is supposed to provide something that in reality it isn't supposed to provide, nor does the current system provide it either. And that 'failure to provide' she cites as a flaw...
Strawman.

[Spidey]

As hard as it is for me to say this…but I have to agree with slick on his tax plan.

I feel queezy.

[callmeslick]

you'll get over it, Spidey.

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

The current system does nothing to alleviate many of the problems you think you know of yet it also doesn't offer the positives that the FairTax does provide. So right there your opposition to it is a stupid position to take just based on simple math!

Then there is the whole problem that you are citing many 'flaws' that don't exist so your opposition is built on willful ignorance.
You keep declaring you see problems that are based on your own uninformed bias. Why not go read one of the books that debunk so much of what you think you know? Or just continue to be a willing pawn on some kings board....

Do the math Will. How is a regressive flat consumption tax EVER going to come close to generating the revenues that a more progressive flat income tax would? I don't even need a calculator, just a lowly brain. I've read the Fair Tax Act. You have to suspend some beliefs just to make it work like they think it should.

Middle and low income people either can't, or won't spend enough to make up the difference. It doesn't add up. The wealthy sure as hell aren't going to spend enough to make up the difference. There just aren't ENOUGH of the them to go around to fill the void. The middle class would take the bulk of the responsibility. And it does need a bureaucracy by the way to administer. Money's going from people's pockets into someone else's hands??? and it has to be kept track of somehow. Cripes, I wouldn't trust business interests to take up the accounting either. I have visions of crooked people skimming off sales receipts, black markets and tax fraud floating in my head..............

But I guess since you're a tea partier?, you have visions of cutting government to the bone so that a regressive sales tax WOULD work on that small little piece of government that's left. Pipe dreams that don't match reality. I'm with slick. A flat rate income tax with no loopholes or deductions would be the easiest and fairest to administer. It's also more progressive. Those who make more can contribute more. Simple. It worked when Reagan did it, it can work again.

[Will Robinson]

Oh, the positives are there, but so are a lot of negatives. It's still regressive to those who spend most of their disposable income, ie., live paycheck to paycheck, and it's a buzz kill for spending, which kind of puts the skids on an economy that depends on spending for growth. The wealthy will never spend enough to make up for the shortfall either. Evasion would be rampant, difficult to trace or stop and cause even more revenue loss for the government. And what about state income taxes, which are not going away soon and would no longer be deductible against federal taxes? No, this gem has too many blemishes for my tastes.

The current system does nothing to alleviate many of the problems you think you know of yet it also doesn't offer the positives that the FairTax does provide. So right there your opposition to it is a stupid position to take just based on simple math!

Then there is the whole problem that you are citing many 'flaws' that don't exist so your opposition is built on willful ignorance.
You keep declaring you see problems that are based on your own uninformed bias. Why not go read one of the books that debunk so much of what you think you know? Or just continue to be a willing pawn on some kings board....

Do the math Will. How is a regressive flat consumption tax EVER going to come close to generating the revenues that a more progressive flat income tax would? I don't even need a calculator, just a lowly brain. I've read the Fair Tax Act. You have to suspend some beliefs just to make it work like they think it should.

Middle and low income people either can't, or won't spend enough to make up the difference. It doesn't add up. The wealthy sure as hell aren't going to spend enough to make up the difference. There just aren't ENOUGH of the them to go around to fill the void. The middle class would take the bulk of the responsibility. And it does need a bureaucracy by the way to administer. Money's going from people's pockets into someone else's hands??? and it has to be kept track of somehow. Cripes, I wouldn't trust business interests to take up the accounting either. I have visions of crooked people skimming off sales receipts, black markets and tax fraud floating in my head..............

But I guess since you're a tea partier?, you have visions of cutting government to the bone so that a regressive sales tax WOULD work on that small little piece of government that's left. Pipe dreams that don't match reality. I'm with slick. A flat rate income tax with no loopholes or deductions would be the easiest and fairest to administer. It's also more progressive. Those who make more can contribute more. Simple. It worked when Reagan did it, it can work again.

You obviously have NOT read the FairTax as you just claimed it was something it is not and then went on a rant pointing out flaws in something that the FairTax is not!

Typical TC post, full of assumptions and wrong in too many ways to list.

[Krom]

Doesn't the middle class usually pay the bulk of taxes in any system? Usually the biggest reason is because in a healthy society the middle class both earns and spends the most money by far?

The poor can't afford to pay taxes and the wealthy are so few that they barely make a difference even when they don't avoid paying taxes.

[Tunnelcat]

Doesn't the middle class usually pay the bulk of taxes in any system? Usually the biggest reason is because in a healthy society the middle class both earns and spends the most money by far?

The poor can't afford to pay taxes and the wealthy are so few that they barely make a difference even when they don't avoid paying taxes.

It still reeks of Republican grandiosity in my opinion, even though you're right that the lion's share of taxes comes from the middle class right now. A consumption tax is still the same as a sales tax by any other name, and it still hits lower incomes far more than the top incomes, prebate or no prebate. And the FTA being revenue neutral is definitely up for debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinni ... irtax.html

[Will Robinson]

Doesn't the middle class usually pay the bulk of taxes in any system? Usually the biggest reason is because in a healthy society the middle class both earns and spends the most money by far?

The poor can't afford to pay taxes and the wealthy are so few that they barely make a difference even when they don't avoid paying taxes.

It still reeks of Republican grandiosity in my opinion, even though you're right that the lion's share of taxes comes from the middle class right now. A consumption tax is still the same as a sales tax by any other name, and it still hits lower incomes far more than the top incomes, prebate or no prebate. And the FTA being revenue neutral is definitely up for debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinni ... irtax.html

No. A sales tax hits everyone the same and the poor suffer to a greater degree being that they would have all there wealth exposed to the tax where wealthy people wouldn't.

If you would stop knee-jerking to the spectre of republican conspiracy you would realize that your statement about "prebate or not" is ridiculously false! If, for example, I set the prebate at a dollar amount greater than the total expenditure of a poor person then they turn a net profit every month instead of paying a single penny in tax!! That is about as progressive as it gets!! Just set that amount where ever you want and I'm on board because the rest of the changes will still create a net improvement for us all....all except the politicians who profit greatly from the current system!

As for the debate, I've told you where the authors have published two editions of basically a FAQ that I'm sure will debunk the content of your link! The problem is you have this preconceived notion that it must be a lie so you Google for something that claims your suspicions are correct and then YOU STOP THINKING. Because you don't want to know the truth, you just want someone to validate your suspicions.

If you wanted to know the truth you would read that link and then go see if they have their facts straight....

you are the horse that has been repeatedly led to water and you are dying of thirst

[Tunnelcat]

Put it this way Will. IF a bunch of Democrats AND Republicans AND Tea Partiers AND Independents ALL suddenly came together all chummy-like and extolled it's virtues like it was the end all system to fix our tax structure, THEN I'd become a supporter. If it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican and walks like a Republican, it's a screw job to the common working stiff. Until that point, no bloody way.

[Spidey]

Not every bad idea is a conspiracy.

[Tunnelcat]

Not every bad idea is a conspiracy.

It is when it's sugar coated and sold as something else.

[Will Robinson]

Not every bad idea is a conspiracy.

It is when it's sugar coated and sold as something else.

You have clearly shown that you don't know what it is yet claim to have the ultimate insight to it and attribute your keen awareness to your belief that republicans approve of it even though almost all of them don't....

You are the DNC's dream constituent.

[Tunnelcat]

And you're wearing tea party-colored glasses.