Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

 

2009-02-27 14:49:15
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7131
The answer is... there should be no limit on a what a person can or should make financially from their efforts... there should only be accountability... if you have broken the law...you will be tried and jailed if found guilty...
  if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...

  The US was built on hardworking people who dreamed of impossible heights and went out and achieved them... If we want to be like "get in line and shutup Europe and be happy they give you anything...?"
  Then we should continue down this road of staggering stimulus pork plans to pay for pet projects and tax the shit out of any of these evil people that have achieved wealth until they give up and join the rest of the people that are owed a living just because they are breathing.... 

People are realizing very quickly what a disaster Obama and the unchecked govt are becoming to the US... I hope that common sense will prevail in 2010 and 2012 when people vote and voice their opinions... time will tell... Until then we all live in fear that our job is next on the chopping block...

Being wealthy isn't a crime... and neither is being poor... 
  Do you really want the govt to provide you with the basics of life...food...shelter...medical etc(as efficient as they are) and you basically sign over any chance of excelling and working hard to better your station in life...?

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-02-27 14:50:48)

Love is the answer
2009-02-27 14:54:38
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6414|...

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...
what about people that are supposed to build / sell houses. They're fucked, is it their fault their companies will fail?

Last edited by dayarath (2009-02-27 14:54:47)

inane little opines
2009-02-27 15:12:22
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7131

dayarath wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...
what about people that are supposed to build / sell houses. They're fucked, is it their fault their companies will fail?
If the company doesn't make money... regardless of reasons... then nobody can or should get paid... right? 
Are you saying that if your company tanks... someone needs to keep paying you?    There are no guarantees in life... I wish there were...lol
Love is the answer
2009-02-27 15:17:25
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6414|...

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

dayarath wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...
what about people that are supposed to build / sell houses. They're fucked, is it their fault their companies will fail?
If the company doesn't make money... regardless of reasons... then nobody can or should get paid... right? 
Are you saying that if your company tanks... someone needs to keep paying you?    There are no guarantees in life... I wish there were...lol
well having a guarantee of a second chance is rather nice, because luck is really a factor of life. Giving people this chance will at the very least ensure that they will become productive for society, maybe continue a new company creating jobs etc.

It has its advantages. Point in here is that if you yourself get in such a situation, you can atleast expect that not everything will go wrong.
inane little opines
2009-02-27 16:43:56
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7225|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:


You failed to answer my question with all of your frustrated bullshit.

I am asking you how you plan on measuring greed. Who is going to be high executioner over-seeing it, and most importantly, how much are you gunna pay him to do so?

Ya see, your big solution is going to put even more govt. control over our personal lives. YOu may want it, hell, in Europe, you may need it, since you are not used to having to provide for yourselves. Most im America, however, do not need govt. in such a way nor do we want it. The only ones that do, are those that refuse to accept responsibility for themselves.

Now please answer my question on how you plan on measuring greed and by who.
Oops ... switch containable with contractible (I think) or maybe contageous is a better word in my previous post ...

How you measure greed?



You are just incredible, your questions and perception of this issue is just unbelievable ...
Not really,if you intend to impose or support legislation against greed, you really should have a base line or a way to measure it, s oyou know what is legal or illegal. If not, how are you supposed to differenciate between those that have earned too much and is no longer deserving, and those that are not treated fair and deserve what others have worked for.

What is laughable is your inability to answer the question as to what greed is and how to curtail it, but insist measures need to be taken to do so.


So again, how will you decide who is deserving of their gains from their efforts, and who is just greedy. Also, who do you suppose is the greed high executioner?
So you think it's okay for some people to make money off someone elses misfortune?

You can't legislate against greed lowing and that have never been my idea either ... you cant measure greed in kilos, pounds, meters nor yards but like pointed out there is something called business ethics ... first and foremost you start a business to enrich yourself, you expand and hire people and pay them saleries etc etc ... this is beneficial for the society in general ... what is not beneficial is when the very same company legally makes money off people that can't afford it like mentioned with a few examples in my previous post ... when they do just that they dry out their own basis of income in the long run for a short time profit ... when this is done on a grander scale like at a national level you dry out the entire basis for survival for the whole nation ... kinda how you ended up in this mess as explained in the previous post and by many others in many threads on this forum ...

That is how greed works and the results of it ... so maybe you can measure greed after all if you look at how many have become richer during this crisis as opposed to how many have become poorer ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-27 18:10:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If you completely ignore the small business owners in this country, sure. But to ignore them (or to mischaracterize them the way you have) is to ignore the primary driver of American employment.

The Wall Street douchebags are a small, small, percentage of those earners. And the hedge fund managers (for instance) have only been paying the 15% capital gains tax instead of income tax rates on their income. That's fucked up. And that changing is one thing I agree with in Obama's plan.
I chose to "mischaracterize" or rather highlight some of the groups that get lumped in with the $250k+ crowd. The term small business brings out the idea of the mom and pop corner store, but in reality some of these small businesses are lawyers, doctors, accountants, dentists etc. These service providers require a certain amount of support staff regardless of whether their level of taxation goes up or down. There is no incentive for these people to hire more support staff if their taxes are reduced and there is no incentive to reduce staff if their taxes go up. Further, if a business is just over the 250k+ margin, you would think there would be an incentive to spend more or hire another person to avoid the hirer tax. Afterall, isn't this a margin tax? so the higher taxation is only on the income above $250k and the first $250k is taxed at the lower margin?
If they are incorporated or have some other legal protection, then it's a different situation...which is usually the case with the businesses you mentioned (doctors, lawyers, etc). Then there's business taxes on the corporation, not the individual owner.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Plus anyone who is an employee making 250k+ isn't a primary driver of American employment. The vision of the small business owner is being used as a shield by some to try an prevent the govt from making sure that people pay their fair share of the tax load.
I'm not talking about an employee. I'm talking about a business owner who rolls much of their income right back into the business to grow it. If that income is taxed at a higher level, then there is less money left to put back into the business. And just how is a 60-odd percent marginal tax rate "their fair share"? Wouldn't "fair share" imply that they are paying the same percentage as everyone else? Or is it just "fair" as you've chosen to define it?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I still stand by my statement that if people earning more than $250k are more likely to be engaged in speculating on wall street then the tax increase looks more like a user pay tax which is really a supply side type argument. I'll I did was recharacterize the argument into supply side terms to avoid the "class warfare" rhetoric that has been thrown around. Semantics are a wonderful thing.
I disagree. Those speculating on Wall Street are more likely to be earning more than $250k, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those earning more than $250k are more likely to be speculating on Wall Street. The two situations are not the same. There are far more people who make $250k+ who are NOT speculating on Wall Street than those who are.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-02-27 18:59:19
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6409|Truthistan
At one time the margin rates on those making more was higher. Since the Reagan era began, Congress has chosen to cut those margin rates. But now the govt needs the money to pay for the bailouts, the stimulus, and social programs to provide basic support of the unemployed. That means that taxes are going to go up. In case of the higher income brackets, the taxes are being increased, the previous tax cuts are simply being rolled back. When times are good the govt can afford to give tax breaks, those times are gone and the country can't afford to give money away through tax breaks. There is no free ride here, and saying that we are small business the creators of jobs is not enough to get a pass in this time of crisis. Those people and entities that use the stock market most should be paying to fix the problems - user pay tax. If these segments of society are not made to pay for the loses incurred by the country then we really are socializing the loses.

By the way, professionals are usually an S corp and that means that the income is taxed as if its in the owners hands so there just like individual owners.

You said "There are far more people who make $250k+ who are NOT speculating on Wall Street than those who are." I don't know where you would be getting this, so my point is just as valid as yours. The purpose of my post was to show that a supply side argument could be made that those responsible for the depression namely those engaged in investing on Wall Street should be taxed to pay for the bailouts and for the support of those adversely affected by the economic collapse. That could be achieved by
1. higher percentage tax on higher income margins
2. tax on banks
3. tax on hedge funds and other investing entities
4. taxes or fees on stock trading.
5. taxing on the market value of international transfer pricing

if its going to cost trillions to get us out of this, you are definitely not going to find that money by taxing a waitress's tips. Someone has to pay, so we need to look at who in the recent past has been getting a free ride.

On a side note, if I were a democrat I would look at the scorched earth policies of the Republicans where the Republican's attacked unions, trial lawyers and other groups who financially supported the democrats. The democrats, if they are smart, would take a scorched earth policy against small business owners who overwhelmingly support the Republicans. So really these tax breaks given to upper tax brackets were really just a reward from the Republicans for their political supporters. The same can be said for the health insurance companies and big Pharma who also overwhelming support the Republicans. In the end I think that scorched earth on these groups comes partially as payback to undercut the financial support of the Republican party. I guess the moral is that you should watch who you go to bed with, because you might get fleas.
2009-02-27 19:04:23
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6957|Texas - Bigger than France

AussieReaper wrote:

You've said numerous times that your in huge amounts of debt as a nation. Raising taxes is the only way to reduce that debt, along with funding cuts. You cut funding and then services will suffer. Taxes like this were inevitable, because you as a nation are in so much debt. Even if Obama doesn't have the tax money available, that's because Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy, those making more than $250,000 for example, the US has spent trillions in Iraq and all Obama can do is repeal the tax cuts Bush gave out, and levy them onto the rich again.

Universal health care might not be a great way to to reduce national debt, but it is one way of keeping the productivity of America as a nation up.
Raising taxes is one way, however when you increase spending above the raised taxes, which seems to be the case in the budget proposed...

The other was to reduce the debt is not to spend as much.

Universal health care is a great idea.  I have absolutely no idea how to fund it however.
2009-02-27 19:06:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

The point of the OP is, however, that there isn't enough money in those margins to pay for all those things. Not even close.

If the Dems take a scorched earth policy toward small business owners, they will simply put a stake in the heart of the American economy...not a good idea, even for those outside the US.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-02-27 19:10:20
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6957|Texas - Bigger than France

FEOS wrote:

The point of the OP is, however, that there isn't enough money in those margins to pay for all those things. Not even close.

If the Dems take a scorched earth policy toward small business owners, they will simply put a stake in the heart of the American economy...not a good idea, even for those outside the US.
To some degree, but there's some good deductions if you continue spending.  However, if you stop you're in trouble.

Second, the capital gains rates on small businesses are supposed to be eliminated.  This allows two things to happen 1) eliminates some of the barriers to entry, 2) I think it will increase the number of consolidations of small businesses being bought by large businesses.

I don't think consolidation into larger corps is a good idea or an intent of the current administration...but there it is...right out there.
2009-02-27 20:04:52
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7131

Diesel_dyk wrote:

At one time the margin rates on those making more was higher. Since the Reagan era began, Congress has chosen to cut those margin rates. But now the govt needs the money to pay for the bailouts, the stimulus, and social programs to provide basic support of the unemployed. That means that taxes are going to go up. In case of the higher income brackets, the taxes are being increased, the previous tax cuts are simply being rolled back. When times are good the govt can afford to give tax breaks, those times are gone and the country can't afford to give money away through tax breaks. There is no free ride here, and saying that we are small business the creators of jobs is not enough to get a pass in this time of crisis. Those people and entities that use the stock market most should be paying to fix the problems - user pay tax. If these segments of society are not made to pay for the loses incurred by the country then we really are socializing the loses.

By the way, professionals are usually an S corp and that means that the income is taxed as if its in the owners hands so there just like individual owners.

You said "There are far more people who make $250k+ who are NOT speculating on Wall Street than those who are." I don't know where you would be getting this, so my point is just as valid as yours. The purpose of my post was to show that a supply side argument could be made that those responsible for the depression namely those engaged in investing on Wall Street should be taxed to pay for the bailouts and for the support of those adversely affected by the economic collapse. That could be achieved by
1. higher percentage tax on higher income margins
2. tax on banks
3. tax on hedge funds and other investing entities
4. taxes or fees on stock trading.
5. taxing on the market value of international transfer pricing

if its going to cost trillions to get us out of this, you are definitely not going to find that money by taxing a waitress's tips. Someone has to pay, so we need to look at who in the recent past has been getting a free ride.

On a side note, if I were a democrat I would look at the scorched earth policies of the Republicans where the Republican's attacked unions, trial lawyers and other groups who financially supported the democrats. The democrats, if they are smart, would take a scorched earth policy against small business owners who overwhelmingly support the Republicans. So really these tax breaks given to upper tax brackets were really just a reward from the Republicans for their political supporters. The same can be said for the health insurance companies and big Pharma who also overwhelming support the Republicans. In the end I think that scorched earth on these groups comes partially as payback to undercut the financial support of the Republican party. I guess the moral is that you should watch who you go to bed with, because you might get fleas.
scorched earth?  No offense but you don't have a clue...lol   You think it's a good idea for the democrats to try and squash small business owners... the heart of the economy?  Dont you think there are some democrat small business owners...?

And if you believe that the wall st guys should be punished... should we also punish the people that bought houses they couldn't afford?
Or should we write them all checks to help them keep the house for a couple more months before they can't pay for it again... like the mighty BO wants to do?
Love is the answer
2009-02-27 22:00:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7066|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Lowing, I think the definition of greed has more to do with how the wealth is obtained rather than a dollar figure.
No, I have heard on this forum people spouting off as to what people should and should not have. IE, no one NEEDS 5 houses, no one needs a private jet etc....These statements fly into the face of ownership and not how it was obtained.

Also, if the wealth is obtained legally, what is your problem with it? Should a company owner NOT become wealthy through his risk taking, and efforts and decisions? Then once wealthy, should they not be allowed to do with it as they see fit and not as YOU see fit?



So again if you are going to legislate greed, what will the rule of measure be and who will be the one to decide if a person is greedy or not?
Legal or not, there is small little thing called ETHICS.  Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't unethical.  Sure, independent business owners take risks, but all too often so do those in charge of corporations, of which stockholders are the owners of the company.  When they start taking risks to improve their bottom line at the expense of stockholders, that is another story altogether.

You're always griping about things like SSI, but what about people that were planning their retirements?  Many people have had to put off retirement because their IRA's, 401K's, and other investments are in the toilet; years worth of investments wiped out at this point.  All because of greed and some one that "took a chance".  How many people have seen not only their retirement money, but the money they use, or will use, for their child(ren)s college education (you know that education that will make them employable and productive members of society) go up in smoke, all because of greed and the chance that some one took?
You may wanna take a breather and think about 2 definitions

1. investment

2. save


Now, one word denotes a sure thing on a small return for your money, and the other takes risks in hopes for a big pay-off, yet guarantees nothing..Can you guess which is which? 

Also do you think that rich people have not lost a shit load of money as well? Even more that most probably.

What you describe is not greed on the rich persons part, rather greed on the small guys part in EXPECTING that every penny he invests WILL grant huge returns. Entitlement.

Now back to greed, when are you or someone else gunna tell me who decides when someone has earned enough. That certain people are not allowed to have a big boat when his neighbor is out of work because that is unfair and greedy. Who decides these things?

Last edited by lowing (2009-02-28 04:50:19)

2009-02-27 22:13:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7066|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


Oops ... switch containable with contractible (I think) or maybe contageous is a better word in my previous post ...

How you measure greed?



You are just incredible, your questions and perception of this issue is just unbelievable ...
Not really,if you intend to impose or support legislation against greed, you really should have a base line or a way to measure it, s oyou know what is legal or illegal. If not, how are you supposed to differenciate between those that have earned too much and is no longer deserving, and those that are not treated fair and deserve what others have worked for.

What is laughable is your inability to answer the question as to what greed is and how to curtail it, but insist measures need to be taken to do so.


So again, how will you decide who is deserving of their gains from their efforts, and who is just greedy. Also, who do you suppose is the greed high executioner?
So you think it's okay for some people to make money off someone elses misfortune?

You can't legislate against greed lowing and that have never been my idea either ... you cant measure greed in kilos, pounds, meters nor yards but like pointed out there is something called business ethics ... first and foremost you start a business to enrich yourself, you expand and hire people and pay them saleries etc etc ... this is beneficial for the society in general ... what is not beneficial is when the very same company legally makes money off people that can't afford it like mentioned with a few examples in my previous post ... when they do just that they dry out their own basis of income in the long run for a short time profit ... when this is done on a grander scale like at a national level you dry out the entire basis for survival for the whole nation ... kinda how you ended up in this mess as explained in the previous post and by many others in many threads on this forum ...

That is how greed works and the results of it ... so maybe you can measure greed after all if you look at how many have become richer during this crisis as opposed to how many have become poorer ...
yes I do, if a company fails, I expect someone will kick through the ashes and build another company in its place.

I see, so car dealerships should advise people NOT to buy their cars when they can't afford it.

Travel agencies are now supposed to advise people NOT to go on vacation

It is up to the individual to decide for themselves what tehy can afford and what they can not. Or is this yet another function you wish to pawn off on govt.?

Why we are in this mess has already been covered, and that is between stupid people and their lenders. I have nothing to do with it and should not be saddled with it.
2009-02-27 23:04:13
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6409|Truthistan

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

At one time the margin rates on those making more was higher. Since the Reagan era began, Congress has chosen to cut those margin rates. But now the govt needs the money to pay for the bailouts, the stimulus, and social programs to provide basic support of the unemployed. That means that taxes are going to go up. In case of the higher income brackets, the taxes are being increased, the previous tax cuts are simply being rolled back. When times are good the govt can afford to give tax breaks, those times are gone and the country can't afford to give money away through tax breaks. There is no free ride here, and saying that we are small business the creators of jobs is not enough to get a pass in this time of crisis. Those people and entities that use the stock market most should be paying to fix the problems - user pay tax. If these segments of society are not made to pay for the loses incurred by the country then we really are socializing the loses.

By the way, professionals are usually an S corp and that means that the income is taxed as if its in the owners hands so there just like individual owners.

You said "There are far more people who make $250k+ who are NOT speculating on Wall Street than those who are." I don't know where you would be getting this, so my point is just as valid as yours. The purpose of my post was to show that a supply side argument could be made that those responsible for the depression namely those engaged in investing on Wall Street should be taxed to pay for the bailouts and for the support of those adversely affected by the economic collapse. That could be achieved by
1. higher percentage tax on higher income margins
2. tax on banks
3. tax on hedge funds and other investing entities
4. taxes or fees on stock trading.
5. taxing on the market value of international transfer pricing

if its going to cost trillions to get us out of this, you are definitely not going to find that money by taxing a waitress's tips. Someone has to pay, so we need to look at who in the recent past has been getting a free ride.

On a side note, if I were a democrat I would look at the scorched earth policies of the Republicans where the Republican's attacked unions, trial lawyers and other groups who financially supported the democrats. The democrats, if they are smart, would take a scorched earth policy against small business owners who overwhelmingly support the Republicans. So really these tax breaks given to upper tax brackets were really just a reward from the Republicans for their political supporters. The same can be said for the health insurance companies and big Pharma who also overwhelming support the Republicans. In the end I think that scorched earth on these groups comes partially as payback to undercut the financial support of the Republican party. I guess the moral is that you should watch who you go to bed with, because you might get fleas.
scorched earth?  No offense but you don't have a clue...lol   You think it's a good idea for the democrats to try and squash small business owners... the heart of the economy?  Dont you think there are some democrat small business owners...?

And if you believe that the wall st guys should be punished... should we also punish the people that bought houses they couldn't afford?
Or should we write them all checks to help them keep the house for a couple more months before they can't pay for it again... like the mighty BO wants to do?
"scorched earth?  No offense but you don't have a clue...lol"
I was making the observation that those being targeted look to be staunch Republican supporters. most if not all business people are in the back pockets of the Republicans. Crap in my town the chamber of commerce invited that stupid skank Anne Coulter to speak, now that's showing a Republican bias. If scorched earth on these groups doesn't make sense, that would be because party politics do not make sense. And since when have politicans ever had a clue when their number one rule is never hurt the party. I myself favor a pragmatic approach to solving the economic crisis and the banks, mortgage holders, home owners etc should not receive one penny of tax money. But the govt has decided to bail out everyone so that means that the govt needs revenue now and must increase revenue in the very near future.

Now, the "tax increase" that people are complaining about is really just a roll back of previous tax reductions. Just because these groups have enjoyed favored status for the past 25 years does not mean that they will enjoy it from now until eternity. Right now the govt needs to increase revenue and it looks like the supporters of the opposing party are being targeted. Ultimately tax policy is a political decision and when that happens you enter the world of party politics.


So, Like I said "If I were a democrat" and my number one rule was never hurt the party and the number two rule was to keep the party in power, then I would practice scorched earth, Why? Why wreck small business if it would hurt the economy as you say it would? because being the king of a burnt kingdom is better than being the joker in a vibrant kingdom. Attacks on small business, big pharma, health insurance industry, the insurance industry in general and other Republican supporters can be expected. After all the republican attack on trial lawyers meant less money in their pockets to hire people. And unions create a basic floor for wages and benefits and that means that consumers have money in their pockets to keep the economy growing. So the Republican attack on unions under cut consumers. Yes scorched earth on the opposing party's supporters does not make economic sense, it does make political sense and a bad economy would provide great cover for a scorched earth policy. After all the Reagan revolution has been proven to be an utter failure so what better cover than that to roll the clock back on tax cuts, Right?. Tax cuts = deficits, Right?

If the Republicans were in, I have no doubt that they would be cutting social spending and cutting the legs out from unions, the poor and other groups that support the democrats, that's just politics and it wouldn't matter one whit to them that they would be practicing scorched earth on consumers who are the true heart of the american economy. And we all know that without consumers there would be no small businesses, in fact, there would be no economy at all.

One more point, if these groups have enough money that they can afford to pay a speakers fee to that skank Anne Coulter, then I think that there might be a little fat there that could be trimmed off for taxes. Better the poor get that money than that skank.
2009-02-27 23:57:26
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6902|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
You are calling Anne Coulter a skank, but what about Nancy Pelosi? She complains about the Republican's every chance she gets, but she has has the run of Congress for how long? Who was in control of Congress when this melt down happened? People blame Bush, I blame Congress, they are the ones who control the bills.
2009-02-28 00:05:13
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6521|eXtreme to the maX

Catbox wrote:

The US was built on hardworking people who dreamed of impossible heights and went out and achieved them...
Former Europeans mostly.
If we want to be like "get in line and shutup Europe and be happy they give you anything...?"
There are entrepreneurs outside the US you know, and there are plenty of 'get in line' types in the US, didn't they just get their guy into the White House?
Fuck Israel
2009-02-28 00:09:17
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6902|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Catbox wrote:

The US was built on hardworking people who dreamed of impossible heights and went out and achieved them...
Former Europeans mostly.
If we want to be like "get in line and shutup Europe and be happy they give you anything...?"
There are entrepreneurs outside the US you know, and there are plenty of 'get in line' types in the US, didn't they just get their guy into the White House?
Unfortunately they did. I didn't like ether candidate, but looks like we got stuck with the one that could stroke the crowd the best.

The sad thing is all the American entrepreneurs are going to leave and set up shop in a different country that doesn't penalize them for doing well.
2009-02-28 00:19:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6521|eXtreme to the maX

SgtHeiHn wrote:

The sad thing is all the American entrepreneurs are going to leave and set up shop in a different country that doesn't penalize them for doing well.
Aah, you mean Dubai.
Fuck Israel
2009-02-28 00:28:07
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6902|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Dilbert_X wrote:

SgtHeiHn wrote:

The sad thing is all the American entrepreneurs are going to leave and set up shop in a different country that doesn't penalize them for doing well.
Aah, you mean Dubai.
Maybe, hell, even China. The way these new taxes are going, most small businesses are going to get crucified and the big businesses are going to keep getting government money. The way we are bailing out all these companies is encouraging them to fail. When shit goes south, just get the government to give you money. It totally defeats the idea of capitalism.
2009-02-28 00:33:34
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6902|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
Oh and look how we gave AIG how much tax payer money and the still failed, that is how many millions we will never see again?
2009-02-28 00:33:56
imortal
Member
+240|7080|Austin, TX

dayarath wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...
what about people that are supposed to build / sell houses. They're fucked, is it their fault their companies will fail?
Guess what?  Nobody said life was fair.  There was warning far ahead that we were nearing a collapse of the housing market.  It was bound to happen.  Should have planned ahead. 

I know, I know.  I am a cold, heartless bastard.
2009-02-28 00:39:27
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6902|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

imortal wrote:

dayarath wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

if you built a company up and you neglect it and it fails... you will not receive any money or stock due to the failure of your company...
what about people that are supposed to build / sell houses. They're fucked, is it their fault their companies will fail?
Guess what?  Nobody said life was fair.  There was warning far ahead that we were nearing a collapse of the housing market.  It was bound to happen.  Should have planned ahead. 

I know, I know.  I am a cold, heartless bastard.
Thats the shitty thing, all the regular people that busted their asses in that company are the ones getting the shaft and the executives get golden parachutes for making shitty decisions.
2009-02-28 01:59:54
PureFodder
Member
+225|6700

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As I said, socialise medical malpractice insurance and the doctors no longer have to worry about it.
Where did you say that? Socializing the malpractice insurance does nothing about the costs of payouts.
Contrary to the spectacular masive sums you see on the front pages, the payouts of medical tort cases are really not that big.
If we take Tenneesee as an example because they actualy released their info:
http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negli … youts.html
* Total medical malpractice verdicts against health care providers in Tennessee in 2004: 6

* Total judgments paid on those 6 cases: $1,958,648

* Total dollars paid in judgements and settlements: $110,292,183

* Average settlement or judgment amount in the 444 cases that were resolved by settlement or judgment in 2004: $243,944

* Cases closed with no payment whatsover: 1,916

* Average payment per case closed with or without payment: $45,904

If we assume Tennessee isn't wildly different to the rest of the country, as the average payout suggests, this indicates that total medical tort payouts for the counrtry are around $5-10 billion per year. The US healthcare costs are around $1-1.5 trillion more than most rich countries.

This even ignores the fact that other countries have their share of tort cases too and the fact that most large settlements are for death or serious permanent injury, hence totally justified.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As far as costs go, I've said nothing about the costs of providing medicine, only the admin costs that the private and universal systems generate. Vast admin costs are simply a product of the private system.
The admin costs are not the bulk of the costs of the system. To ignore the biggest costs is to oversimplify the problem to fit your hypothesis.
The US spends almost as much per person on administering their healthcare system as most countries pay on their entire helathcare system.
That's a spectacular waste as it adds nothing to the quality of care that anyone recieves, it just pisses money away.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As far as the overall cost of the system goes, the relative costs of the US tort system have remained effectively the same since the mid 80's yet the cost of the US medical system has exploded and is expected to explode further.
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebca … _FINAL.pdf
The US tort system is relatively in check already and simply doesn't put out the numbers to be the cause of the problems in the US medical system. Other countries with much cheaper healthcare systems also have fairly similar tort costs to the US and (the UK has 30% less tort cases than the US and the average payout per case is actually slightly higher). Tort reform isn't the reson for these costs.
Are you talking about "overall cost" or "relative costs"? They are two different metrics. Even if the per-capita tort costs are roughly equivalent, the overall cost of the system when scaled to a 350M+ population makes it unworkable.
Why? If the costs are 5 times larger and they are split between 5 times more people, the costs per person are the same.

FEOS wrote:

You also overlook the tort costs associated with medical product development. They are also vulnerable to malpractice-like torts, which in turn raise costs to the consumer/patient.
Which also occurs in every other country with vastly cheaper healthcare. Also, it helps to prevent damage to people by providing a serious deterent for dangerous products. Remember that the vast majority of tort cases involve death or major permanent injuries and are very genuine.

FEOS wrote:

The problem is not as simplistic as you would portray it. For every layer you attempt to peel back, there are two or three more that you haven't addressed.
You haven't adressed the fact that most of these issues are the same for all countries, hence can't be the reason for Americas massive healthcare costs.

FEOS wrote:

As shown in Appendix 5, our estimate of medical malpractice costs in 2005 is approximately $29.4 billion. Our analysis suggests that, since 1975, medical malpractice costs have increased at an annual rate of 11.4%, versus 8.7% for all other tort costs.
Our definition of tort cost is largely governed by traditional liability insurance coverages. We previously noted the exclusion of tobacco settlements. For gray areas, where awards and settlements are typically (but not always) excluded, such as punitive damages, which are included in the insurance contract in certain states and not in others, and certain types of contract and shareholder litigation, the costs reflected in this study are consistent with those reported by the insurance companies themselves. Therefore, while certain of these costs may be included in the tort cost totals, we are unable to separately account for them.
Your source has also excluded the largest source of cost in medical torts: punitive damage awards.
see above, the total costs of payouts are a tiny fraction of healthcare spending and other countries that have far cheaper healthare systems have these costs too.

There simply is no aspect of the tort system that can account for the $1 trillion+ extra costs of the US healtcare system in comparison to the tort systems of other countries.
2009-03-01 06:22:44
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:

At one time the margin rates on those making more was higher.
Yes, under FDR it was around 70% or so. And if it hadn't been for WW2, it would have kept the Depression going indefinitely.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

In case of the higher income brackets, the taxes are being increased, the previous tax cuts are simply being rolled back.
That's asinine Democrat talking points. If you get a pay raise, and someone then decides to take it away, it's a pay cut. The logic you use is just a way to make it seem like less of an issue to those who it isn't affecting.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

When times are good the govt can afford to give tax breaks, those times are gone and the country can't afford to give money away through tax breaks. There is no free ride here, and saying that we are small business the creators of jobs is not enough to get a pass in this time of crisis. Those people and entities that use the stock market most should be paying to fix the problems - user pay tax. If these segments of society are not made to pay for the loses incurred by the country then we really are socializing the loses.
While I agree to a point that tax cuts are not something the govt can afford, there is also a wealth of data showing that tax cuts increase government revenues (both in the 80s under Reagan and recently under Bush).

And the rest of the above is just ironic as hell. The government can't afford to "give money away through tax breaks", but it CAN afford to give money away through handouts. /facepalm

Diesel_dyk wrote:

By the way, professionals are usually an S corp and that means that the income is taxed as if its in the owners hands so there just like individual owners.
Then your earlier argument is moot. However, here's a compromise: Have the owners document the amount of their income they reinvest in their company, then tax the remainder at the personal income level. Best of both worlds.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You said "There are far more people who make $250k+ who are NOT speculating on Wall Street than those who are." I don't know where you would be getting this, so my point is just as valid as yours.
Simple math is where I get that. Look at the number of people in the US who make $250k or more. Then look at the number of Wall Street speculators. The former number is MUCH higher than the latter.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The purpose of my post was to show that a supply side argument could be made that those responsible for the depression namely those engaged in investing on Wall Street should be taxed to pay for the bailouts and for the support of those adversely affected by the economic collapse.
1. We're not in a depression.
2. Everyone who has a mutual fund/IRA is "engaged in investing on Wall Street"...so everyone (to include those who make less than $250k) should be taxed to pay for the actions of the speculators? Which, btw are not the same people as "those engaged in investing on Wall Street". How about those homeowners who knowingly bought more house than they could afford, accepting risk that the interest rates would go up and their equity would go down? They aren't being punished...they're "victims". I'm sure you wouldn't want to punish those people, even though they played a large part in starting this ball rolling.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

if its going to cost trillions to get us out of this, you are definitely not going to find that money by taxing a waitress's tips. Someone has to pay, so we need to look at who in the recent past has been getting a free ride.
So the people who have been providing roughly 70% of the income tax collected by the federal government have been "getting a free ride"? Seriously?

The data's out there...research it. I found it pretty quickly with google.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

On a side note, if I were a democrat I would look at the scorched earth policies of the Republicans where the Republican's attacked unions, trial lawyers and other groups who financially supported the democrats. The democrats, if they are smart, would take a scorched earth policy against small business owners who overwhelmingly support the Republicans. So really these tax breaks given to upper tax brackets were really just a reward from the Republicans for their political supporters. The same can be said for the health insurance companies and big Pharma who also overwhelming support the Republicans. In the end I think that scorched earth on these groups comes partially as payback to undercut the financial support of the Republican party. I guess the moral is that you should watch who you go to bed with, because you might get fleas.
Unions, trial lawyers, and other groups who financially supported democrats are also benefitting from that tax structure, btw. And they would end up paying more under the Dems. But they would end up earning more under the Dems as well...unlike the small business owners.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-01 06:34:26
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As I said, socialise medical malpractice insurance and the doctors no longer have to worry about it.
Where did you say that? Socializing the malpractice insurance does nothing about the costs of payouts.
Contrary to the spectacular masive sums you see on the front pages, the payouts of medical tort cases are really not that big.
If we take Tenneesee as an example because they actualy released their info:
http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negli … youts.html
* Total medical malpractice verdicts against health care providers in Tennessee in 2004: 6

* Total judgments paid on those 6 cases: $1,958,648

* Total dollars paid in judgements and settlements: $110,292,183

* Average settlement or judgment amount in the 444 cases that were resolved by settlement or judgment in 2004: $243,944

* Cases closed with no payment whatsover: 1,916

* Average payment per case closed with or without payment: $45,904

If we assume Tennessee isn't wildly different to the rest of the country, as the average payout suggests, this indicates that total medical tort payouts for the counrtry are around $5-10 billion per year. The US healthcare costs are around $1-1.5 trillion more than most rich countries.

This even ignores the fact that other countries have their share of tort cases too and the fact that most large settlements are for death or serious permanent injury, hence totally justified.
Tennessee?! You pick one of the most conservative states as your case study to back your "low cost" thesis?! Seriously?!

Of course juries in a conservative state such as Tennessee will award less. Do a comparison of CA or New England states, then come back to me.

PF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

As far as costs go, I've said nothing about the costs of providing medicine, only the admin costs that the private and universal systems generate. Vast admin costs are simply a product of the private system.
The admin costs are not the bulk of the costs of the system. To ignore the biggest costs is to oversimplify the problem to fit your hypothesis.
The US spends almost as much per person on administering their healthcare system as most countries pay on their entire helathcare system.
That's a spectacular waste as it adds nothing to the quality of care that anyone recieves, it just pisses money away.
You keep saying that, but we haven't seen any data (not even from Tennessee) supporting that.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Are you talking about "overall cost" or "relative costs"? They are two different metrics. Even if the per-capita tort costs are roughly equivalent, the overall cost of the system when scaled to a 350M+ population makes it unworkable.
Why? If the costs are 5 times larger and they are split between 5 times more people, the costs per person are the same.
So you are talking about relative (ie, per capita) costs. That's what I was asking.

The problem is that you assume a linear relationship between the individual and cumulative costs. That is not necessarily the case. Hence, why state (particularly smaller state) programs are more efficient (and effective) than larger ones. It's called bureaucracy, and you can't get away from it.

PF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You also overlook the tort costs associated with medical product development. They are also vulnerable to malpractice-like torts, which in turn raise costs to the consumer/patient.
Which also occurs in every other country with vastly cheaper healthcare. Also, it helps to prevent damage to people by providing a serious deterent for dangerous products. Remember that the vast majority of tort cases involve death or major permanent injuries and are very genuine.
I'm not saying they aren't valid. I'm saying that without reform--particularly on punitive damage awards, which are fairly arbitrary--the massive costs just get passed on to the consumer.

PF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The problem is not as simplistic as you would portray it. For every layer you attempt to peel back, there are two or three more that you haven't addressed.
You haven't adressed the fact that most of these issues are the same for all countries, hence can't be the reason for Americas massive healthcare costs.
And you haven't proven that that's the case.

PF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As shown in Appendix 5, our estimate of medical malpractice costs in 2005 is approximately $29.4 billion. Our analysis suggests that, since 1975, medical malpractice costs have increased at an annual rate of 11.4%, versus 8.7% for all other tort costs.
Our definition of tort cost is largely governed by traditional liability insurance coverages. We previously noted the exclusion of tobacco settlements. For gray areas, where awards and settlements are typically (but not always) excluded, such as punitive damages, which are included in the insurance contract in certain states and not in others, and certain types of contract and shareholder litigation, the costs reflected in this study are consistent with those reported by the insurance companies themselves. Therefore, while certain of these costs may be included in the tort cost totals, we are unable to separately account for them.
Your source has also excluded the largest source of cost in medical torts: punitive damage awards.
see above, the total costs of payouts are a tiny fraction of healthcare spending and other countries that have far cheaper healthare systems have these costs too.
I was addressing tort reform specifically. You are neglecting the cascading effect of significant tort reform in determining price points for care. If the threat of exorbitant payouts is lower, the price of the drug/equipment/service can be lowered. Thus, when looking at an economy of scale, you get massive decreases in expense over the entire program.

That is not to say that the administration could not be streamlined, but that does not require a nationalized system to do that.

PF wrote:

There simply is no aspect of the tort system that can account for the $1 trillion+ extra costs of the US healtcare system in comparison to the tort systems of other countries.
See above. You haven't proven anything with data. All you have shown is what you think...the only facts you provided showed that tort costs in the medical field increased at a faster rate than other medical costs. Doesn't exactly support your thesis, now does it?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard