The Perfect Bailout Plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Name all the poor people. I expect an answer.

Poor people are NOT "handing" the rich people money.
smirk2.gif
So who is it then?
Quote:
..and parking your wealth at a 35% discount on taxation isn't an avoided cost? Why can't you speak about this reality??

Because you have provided no information on it other than a theory. Do you have a link to support your claim?
The idea that the rich do not pay taxes is pure vapor:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Making millions and paying no taxes? I want to see it.

So you won't send your borrowed tax return back that you wanted me to send back?

Do rich people start businesses or poor people?

And what was that about "prequalifing"
54.gif
to be rich?
Quote:
Partly because some have moved up, as economist Stephen Rose points out. There are 12 percent more households earning in excess of $100,000 than 20 or so years ago. And those making less than $30,000 have not increased. So virtually the entire "decline" of the middle-class group has come from people moving up the income ladder, not down.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/06/13/the-american-dream-goes-on.html?PageNr=1
and this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020700.asp
The idea of unique individuals as a ruling class doesn't hold up.
 
Tempest - you're not going to abandon your line of thinking. So I'll just stop here ..which I should have done a good way back.

If you can't integrate that many upper earners get most of their wealth outside of taxed income ..then we're spinning our tires here. It allows many to wield all the economic clout of millions without paying income taxes on them. It's done all the time and your lack of concession to this reality is distinctively apparent. You rationalize and attempt to intellectualize it ..but it's a dodge no matter how you shake it up.

You still have some myth that I begrudge these people who are doing no more than maximizing their wealth in whatever modality they have available to them. This is not the case. I'm merely pointing out that it's totally disingenuous to assert that the real "higher earners" are paying some disproportionate amount of income tax ..when they're gains in wealth typically outpace their taxed income by several magnitudes.

This is very simple to see. As I've said, a person who takes most of their compensation in deferred or otherwise non-"income" means can claim that they're "taxed to death" and carrying tremendous burden ..while they add millions annually to their total holdings that they're under control of.

That is, it's merely an arbitrary line of illusion to differentiate "earned income" vs. "owned income". In all practical realities ..it's just that, an illusion.

That's my last word on it. You can plant some flag if you feel do compelled.
21.gif
 
The fact is that using absolute terms net worth (rather than inflation adjusted or expense / income percentage) to determine whether the society is better off or not is flawed.

I'm not trying to convince Tempest, because I already gave up as well. According to him every poor folk deserve what he/she got because either he do drugs, she got knocked up too early in life, drop out of school, or are just lazy. Every rich folk deserve the wealth and should not be taxed on the wealth, but rather on the amount of public service he or she use because he EARNED it by starting the wealth, or climb up the social ladder through hard work.

The reality is that the standard of living has dropped, due to the outsourcing of jobs, the rising health care cost, the long commute due to higher housing cost, the higher education cost, the higher health care cost, and the need for 2 earners per family to sustain a normal family's expense.

The earning gap has widen not because people at the bottom are getting lazier, or the people on the top are working harder. It has widen because the fairness of the system is more broken than before.

Do rich people or do poor people start businesses? Both. Poor starts out of desperation, rich starts out of preserving wealth. If businesses fail, as they frequently do, then they deserve to and should let the more efficiently running businesses take over the place. If no one does, then that means it is not a viable business and should not exist to begin with.

Businesses take risk and enjoy the reward if they don't fold. What I have problem with is making them too big to fail, and let government bail them out by letting them take the reward and the government pay for the risk.
 
Given that the bailout was supposed to increase the liquidity in the banking sector, one would think that the banks would be using it to remain liquid...apparently not, the handout is being "saved", or potentially used to buy out smaller businesses.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015010.shtml

Quote:
The deepening red ink underscores a crucial question about the government’s plan: Will lenders deploy their new-found capital quickly, as the Treasury hopes, and unlock the flow of credit through the economy? Or will they hoard the money to protect themselves?

John A. Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, said on Thursday that banks were unlikely to act swiftly. Executives at other banks privately expressed a similar view.

“We will have the opportunity to redeploy that,”Mr. Thain said of the new capital on a telephone call with analysts. “But at least for the next quarter, it’s just going to be a cushion."


Quote:
“I don’t think that the market wants to see that capital being put to work to leverage the business up again,”said Roger Freeman, an analyst at Barclays Capital, which acquired parts of the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers last month.“My expectation is it’s quarters off, not months off, before you see that capital being put to work.”
 
Quote:
According to him every poor folk deserve what he/she got because either he do drugs, she got knocked up too early in life, drop out of school, or are just lazy.

Every? NO. But, most people have put themselves in their positions through their own actions. I include myself in that statement.
We have FREE schooling in this country up through 12th grade and cheap to free (depending on income and other things) community colleges. Yet MANY people CHOOSE not to take advantage of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html
Notice that urban centers have the worst drop out rates and have the highest crime and other social issues. Coincidence? I don't think so.
There is NO reason for people not to be self supporting unless they choose otherwise.
Quote:
The reality is that the standard of living has dropped, due to the outsourcing of jobs, the rising health care cost, the long commute due to higher housing cost, the higher education cost, the higher health care cost, and the need for 2 earners per family to sustain a normal family's expense.

Sorry, fact check:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
Quote:
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

High taxes kill your economy. Yet more proof that it does indeed matter who is spending the money.
Quote:
The earning gap has widen not because people at the bottom are getting lazier, or the people on the top are working harder. It has widen because the fairness of the system is more broken than before.

Not true and posted links above to prove it.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The earning gap has widen not because people at the bottom are getting lazier, or the people on the top are working harder. It has widen because the fairness of the system is more broken than before.

Not true and posted links above to prove it.


Morning news is that the Oz Govt is looking at a "rich" tax of 50% for people "earning" over $1M per year.

I don't think it's a good idea, however the driver is apparentlty that the $1M earners collectively pay less than 20% tax on their "income".

While me and my co-workers pay a little over 30% on our base wage, and 40% on interest, overtime etc.

In other words, if they introduce 50% tax, the million dollar earners will manipulate it back to the rates that normal people pay.
 
Quote:
If they had paid an extra 5 per cent, more than $250 million would have been raised - money which is desperately needed to bolster the Budget's bottom line.

Well it's good to know that the priority is the government not having to go without...
smirk2.gif

I want to see the deductions that the execs. are getting. I bet there are plenty of these guys not paying taxes they are supposed to...which is a crime.
 
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Quote:
Australia Institute



Translates to "social communists".

After a little googling, would seem so.
 
So much easier to call "communist" than think.

How about prostitution to stay in business ?

http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/10/22/lehman_failure_dogs_evergreen_solar/

Quote:
Evergreen, when it needed to raise money in July to build a plant at the old Fort Devens site, arranged a $375 million bond deal with Lehman. But there was a catch. As part of the transaction, Evergreen had to lend Lehman 30.9 million shares of its own stock - so that hedge funds could borrow them and short them, or bet the stock would fall. That's right: Evergreen had to provide its own shares for hedge funds to short.

The arrangement is not unusual, analysts said, for a company like Evergreen. It's not yet profitable, its stock has fallen 79 percent this year, and options for raising money were limited. The company's chief financial officer, Michael El-Hillow, said convertible bonds - a type of bond that can convert to stock at a preset price - largely attract hedge funds. But when those investors buy the bonds, it's for insurance against the stock price rising; in other words, if the stock rises, they'd lose money on their short bet, but they'd make money on the bonds.

"The convertibles are always a tough way to do business," El-Hillow said. Evergreen had $44 million in state backing, a new factory on tap, a hefty backlog of orders, and plans to grow from 850 employees to 1,100, he said. "We needed the money."

There was supposed to be protection for the company in the contract with Lehman. If the investment bank's debt rating took a hit, or if the firm was headed for bankruptcy, Evergreen was supposed to get back its 30.9 million shares, according to the company's lawsuit, filed in US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. With those shares locked up, Evergreen will have a harder time raising capital.

But Lehman's undoing happened quickly, over a weekend, and the firm filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 15. And it did not return Evergreen's shares, despite "repeated demands," and instead transferred 12 million of them to Barclays, which acquired Lehman's investment banking assets in the bankruptcy.
 
Just an old dumb country boy, but I'd bet that instead of giving billions to millionairs, if they'd get the price of fuel just a bit lower still,and keep it there, the economy'd take care of itself.

Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
$500,000 Executive pay limit for bailout companies
2 3
Replies
52
Views
16K
StevieC
MolaKule
  • Locked
Economics and Pensions
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Gary Allan
B
  • Locked
Nuclear Power - My Plan
Replies
6
Views
802
JavaMan
G
  • Locked
More of the good things to come - pensions
Replies
12
Views
2K
Dan4510
D
  • Locked
Cost of Illegal Immigration
Replies
2
Views
867
Al
Back
Top Bottom