TRIVIA.....Will history be repeated ? ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

Barry-

This is where the divide begins. There are some (I think like yourself) that see giving any tax break to the wealthest people as a bad thing. On the other side there are those who say those 1-2% shoulder the vast majority of the tax burden all ready, and are much more likely to invest what they save into the economy, thus improving the economy and increasing money to the treasury.

It will be difficult to get these two sides to agree.

Again I'm not saying I'm against raising taxes (though I would much rather cut spending), but you will never get me to believe that taking money from me and giving it directly to someone else is how this country should be run.

Edited for typos.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:

Obama plans no increases to the Capital Gains or Inheritance taxes for families earning less than $250,000. Most of the tax increases attributed to Obama's plan that get circulated around the internet are simply untrue. To my knowledge, all the Obama tax increases are at that $250K level or greater. I'd love if you could educate me as to where I'm incorrect in that assertion; I've tried to read all the information directly from Obama and filter out the rhetoric from other places.

One thing I failed to mention in my previous post is McCain's desire to tax my health benefits, which is something I'm also trying to learn about without partisan rhetoric, so if you've got any info on that, I'd love to read it also.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, the fact is that raising capital gains does not lead to greater revenue for the government. Obama was told this during one of the Democratic debates and simply ignored it. And taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I can think of an easy way to cut $3 billion a week...

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Tim- I've heard the argument before that the very rich will spend their wealth, thus helping everyone down the food chain. But I'm not convinced it works. You know, if you tax a billionaire 90%, he's still left with a $100 million. Doesn't seem so bad to me (not advocating a 90% tax, but wouldn't object either).

Jeff- I know it will affect you personally but you are very fortunate to earn a lot of money. I am totally against welfare (surprised to hear a liberal say that?), but I do believe that those who work but still find themselves below the poverty line should be excused from paying any tax. Let the billionaires pay more and give the little guy a break. Let's level the playing field a little.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

" That being said, Obama's anticipated massive increase in capital gains tax and other associated taxes hits everyone, not just those in the top tax brackets."

Jeff, that's the statement you made that I'm trying to understand. You're pointing to a massive increase in capital gains and other taxes that hit everyone, and yet I don't see anywhere in Obama's plan where a thing exists. As I understand it, Obama plans to increase the capital gains taxes on families earning greater than $250K to no more than 28%, more likely closer to 20% - and not at all at the lower income levels.

From reading what you're saying in that sentence above, your post would indicate that this is untrue. That confuses me, because everything I've read directly from the Obama campaign would indicate otherwise. Can you help me?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, unfortunately it's not exactly the American Way to tax billionaires 90% of their income because some poor guy doesn't have any money or doesn't want to work. You may find with that thinking that either the billionaires leave the country, stop working, or we become a country of Socialists.

And Barry, I'm not 'fornuate' to earn a lot of money. I was in court one day last week at 1 am. I hardly felt fortunate then.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

Barry-

I can't argue with what you belive is just.

I still wonder about this though. You said "but I do believe that those who work but still find themselves below the poverty line should be excused from paying any tax. Let the billionaires pay more and give the little guy a break. Let's level the playing field a little."

Are you for those that work and are still below the poverty line that don't currently pay any tax getting a check in the mail for say $1,000?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I was using the 90% to make a point. Of course I don't advocate that. But I do believe that the rich should pay more tax and the poor a smaller percentage. That's not socialism, it's just a fair economic policy.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...bails out a bank, a Socialist gets his wings.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Visit http://www.t206collector.com for Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, the rich already pay more tax and the poor already pay a smaller pecentage. And I think I read somewhere that the top 3% of earners in America pay like 50% of all income taxes (I'll check this out later as well as Al's question and post later).

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But Bush has been cutting the rich breaks since he came into office. That needs to stop.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_ii.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

okay... I am back in the discussion.


just a few musings......

..... My wife - who as of right now will be voting for Obama - and I were talking about my son's 4th grade teacher. My wife was a little nervous about the teacher, because the teacher is new to the school and my wife wasn't sure if she was good or qualified. There was a parent teacher's meeting and it turns out the teacher was great. While discussing the teacher I all of a sudden saw a nice parallel to the election. I asked my wife..... "If this teacher had just 100 days of experience before deciding she wanted to teach our son's fourth grade class - you would be in the principal's office asking for a new teacher.... yet 100 days of experience before deciding he wants to lead our country - - and you are okay with that?!?!" No way she likes the idea of it for a fourth grade teacher of her son - - - I asked how is it possibly okay for the next president?

..... Reverend Wright. With Obama's 'oh gosh, golly, I wasn't there and never heard it' - he lost my vote. Yes - I hold that resonse against him - because it is very telling on many levels. Funny how some would like us to not hold Reverend Wright against Obama.... yet they won't vote for McCain because of Bush. How does that happen?

..... Al - I am with Jeff (somewhat) on the Tax statistics he mentioned. Higher taxes does not necessarily result in higher tax revenue by the government. Cutting taxes may actually increase the overall tax collected. Sounds funny, but it is similar to raising prices on a consumer product. At some point - you raise prices and actually discourage purchases and the result is lower revenue. At some point with taxes you stifle growth / business / etc. Its a tremendously complex animal way above my abilities. In truth I tend to go with the democrats on this one as they are less apt to debt spend, or so it might seem More than any of the candidate's policies - when it comes to economics, we have to hope the next president puts together a good team. And since I have seen Obama choose 'Mr. God Damn America' to be part of his campaign, and since I have seen him snub Hillary (which would have given him victory IMO).... I have to seriously question Obama's ability to choose the correct people when people need to be chosen.


great civil conversation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Joe:

I'm not debating the merits of high tax vs. low tax. I'm also not trying to argue with Jeff - he's a top-tier criminal defense attorney and I'm a dumbass marketing guy with a laptop. I'm just trying to understand where Jeff got the info that he used to make the statement about Obama's planned massive tax increases, because I've never seen the statement made before by a person who's guided by facts. That's all.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Pugh

I am a republican who is somewhat drawn to barack obama. HOWEVER, choosing biden over hillary was sooooo stupid. it speaks to the type of judgement obama would use in oval office. That - combined with his backwards tax plan and lack of real leadership experience - equates to me voting for mccain (in spite of the iraq debacle).

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

My dear friend, please....re-consider what you are saying here....you are too smart to seriously think this way.......

"Tim- I've heard the argument before that the very rich will spend their wealth, thus helping everyone down the food chain.
But I'm not convinced it works."


Tell me then....do the poor people in this country provide jobs ? ?

HECK NO....it is the wealthy that provide employment to millions of us....and damn it, they can't do it if the government taxes
the crap out of them ! ! ! ! !

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

And right along the lines of what Ted just said. A lot of small business owners will get caught up in the $250,000 tax increase.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It's real easy......if you make between $1.00 and 100 billion dollars a year you pay 22%.....the rich pay a million times more than the poor and everyone pays. There is no free ride.....Sorry about that Mr.Democrat....


My aunt ( a staunch Democrat ) is below the poverty line and doesn't pay anything and gets back money....I don't think that is good for America..(I do love my aunt, bless her heart....she is the only person I know that bounced a check to the Red Cross....)

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

Everyone should pay the same percentage tax rate--its called the flat tax.

Remember what a great president Reagan was. A lot of it was his 30% tax cut.

The so called rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than they ever did.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I spent four years in college as an econ major debating the following:

Trickle down economics vs. tax and spend economics

There is no "right" answer to this debate, but both sides utilize it to defend their positions. There are loads of good arguments on both sides and if you look at history, there are supportable historic examples for both sides.

I kinda get worked up when I see someone defend their side to the death, because there is so much evidence on the other side. Ultimately, I think it is not useful to address these issues in such a black and white fashion. Simplifying argument is good for internet chat boards, but it doesn't really put us in any position to draw complex and appropriate conclusions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Al....

I was more or less just happy to see a friendly name in the thread so I had to put a notation to you in my post

I too would like to know specifics of where Jeff received his information on the tax increases (good question).
I do agree with implication of Jeff's statistics though about the raising taxes... yet at the same time, like I mentioned, I tend to agree with a lot of democrats on economic issues. Its complicated.

I will say that your post is a great one, expressed well, with civility, in this a heated subject -
I don't know that I could believe that you are "a dumbass marketing guy with a laptop"....
are you sure you have a laptop?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Well, Joe, if you must know, I did exaggerate a little. It's a laptop, yes, but I keep it hooked up to a docking station and use it like a desktop so I can view everything on a bigger monitor.

But please - don't characterize me as "friendly." Makes me sound like a wimpy Democrat.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted - the rich who have been providing jobs for the poor have been dropping like flies...there are hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost and unemployment is at a dangerous level...our current plan hasn't worked lately. It's time for a change.

Now Obama may in fact be incapable of changing anything, that is my fear...but I'm willing to take that chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- why does your aunt live below the poverty line? Does she choose not to work, or are there simply no available jobs from which she can rise above of it?

I too am against welfare; people who choose not to work don't deserve a free ride. But how about giving the poor a chance for affordable health insurance?. I pay my own insurance, I'm far from poor, and I find it disgusting what I have to fork over every month.

How about making health insurance affordable for everyone? This country has the worst system on earth. Will that ever change?

And let me add the minimum wage needs to increase, so that people who do work can live a little more comfortably (if you didn't work, it wouldn't apply).

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

edited out..... nm



new analogy - sorry.... (wow barry you are fast)......


okay - barry... you are on an airplane midway between california and ny and very high up.
there is engine trouble.

but don't worry.... the pilot gets on the PA and talks.
He is obviously a good talker.
And heck he has 100 days experience with airplanes - so... well.... you should feel just fine.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Why couldn't a person with 100 days experience sell a baseball card? I have to tell you, it's not really difficult.

I know, being president is more complicated than selling a card. Of course Obama is raw, there's no question about it. If he's president he either learns fast, or he fails. No argument there.

Joe- I answered your question and you took it out. Now don't I look foolish?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

"How about making health insurance affordable for everyone? This country has the worst system on earth. Will that ever change?"

I agree that the healthcare system is horrible, but I don't think letting the goverment take over control of it is the answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

"Of course Obama is raw, there's no question about it."

But Barry, if you get him graded, he'll be more liquid.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

She lives that way today as she is in extremely poor health and can't work. But, when she could work she had problems because of telling all of her bosses how to do their jobs. I love her but it was her fault. I am ok with doing the same thing with insurance as I am with taxes...everyone pays but I would let the poor pay less...even $1.00....but they have to pay something. If we don't make them pay then we are enabling them to continue to not do anything and us pay for it (all). My employer pays for part of my insurance and even with that I still pay almost $900 s month out my pocket for my family (wife and 1 child)....So I too am not happy about the way healthcare is...The minimum wage increased 2 mos, ago and will increase more over each of the next 2 yrs. To me it's stupid though....As a small business owner (same goes for large businesses too) guess what happens when I pay more in wages....YOU pay more for what I sell...It's a cycle and I don't confess to know the answer.....Good debate though...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Tim- I agree the government could easily make a mess of health care reform. But I am genuinely concerned with the situation, since I pay for my own benefits. We've been doing it for about a year now and it's awful and it is getting worse. I don't have an answer, nor do I anticipate a solution from anybody.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- is your aunt able to live comfortably in her current state? I assume she gets some government benefits...considering how ill she is, don't you think that's a good thing?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

okay.... In this thread I see great posts for each candidate....



but in the end....

I must vote for McCain because the Saturday Night Live skits will be much better if Palin is VP.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- now that's the most compelling argument I've heard so far. It would get Tina Fey to make regular guest appearances.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

I would be happy watching Tina Fey every Saturday night.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

The current 6.1% unemployment(U-E) rate is a number that the rest of the world's developed countries would "die" for.

The average U-E rate these past 7 years of approx. 5% has been the lowest since WWII.

The last bad U-E rate was in the Jimmy Carter (malaise) days when it went as high as 8 %.

During the depression of 1929 the U-E rate was as high as 25%.

So, I don't understand your comment ? ?

Also, to your comments......
"How about making health insurance affordable for everyone? This country has the worst system on earth."

We have the greatest Medical providing system, when compared with any other country in the World....the excessive
cost of health Insurance is primarily attributal to several factors. One of the major factors are the excessive frivolous
libel suits. Doctors pay $100K-200K for malpractice insurance.
While Dentists pay a fraction of that. It's a vicious cycle between the Insurance Co. and the Lawyers.


So, what we need is Health Insurance reform and Tax system reform.....Now, that is real "CHANGE".

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

My aunt is on dialysis 3 days a week for 3-4 hours each time. Two weeks ago she had a triple bypass surgery. There is no way she could hold a job right this minute. So, for completely disabled folks (really disabled not like some folks claim to be)I am ok with helping them. I believe the vast majority of subsidies are NOT going to the folks that are really disabled but are going to folks that won't get a job as they will only make $1.00 more per hour (all things taken into account) than if they sit home and watch Oprah. They don't realize that by doing that they will never be able to move up the food chain. It's so fun watching TV when others are working.....(I am on an ex-con call as I type this ).....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Sorry about your aunt's health issues. And we're in complete agreement that people who choose not to work but are able shouldn't get a dime.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

So, what we need is Health Insurance reform and Tax system reform.....Now, that is real "CHANGE".

Are you really screaming for Hillary and Obama?

Truthfully I'd prefer an energy reform first. Russia and the middle east will continue to profit if we as Americans remain addicted to driving everywhere by ourselves.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Saboley

"it is the wealthy that provide employment to millions of us....and damn it, they can't do it if the government taxes
the crap out of them ! ! ! ! !"

There have been massive job losses and fewer opportunities for employment with the capital gains taxes at these low levels during the Bush administration. Trickle-down economics is a ruse and always has been. It's all about the protection of obscene wealth. I am against all taxes....period, regardless of the level of personal wealth, and there are other ways to raise revenue without having any taxes. There wasn't any income tax before Wilson and they should abolish it and have the government raise revenue through selling their own products and organizing federal lotteries.

[Archive]

Posted By: John K

As I remember, a recent figure on wealth distribution in the USA had the top 1% of the population in possession of 50% of the wealth in the country. I have also heard many times conversations about what the top 1/10 of one percent have, but I don't recall the figures here. However, there is no doubt that under Bush/Cheney money is being pushed to the top. And it has been reported that McCain will continue this trend, even worse as I understand. Look at the economy: trickle down and deregulation do not work. The middle class is disappearing.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

"And Barry, I'm not 'fornuate' to earn a lot of money. I was in court one day last week at 1 am. I hardly felt fortunate then."

Jeff, of course you're fortunate to make a lot of money.

I happen to be a physics professor--a theoretical physicist.

I spent six years in graduate school to earn my PhD. (As opposed to three years in law school.)

And I wasn't given that degree because I passed my exams--I had to do something completely original. Discover something new.

My first postdoctoral position paid $17k/annum. (Quite a bit less, I'll wager, than a starting lawyer made at a good firm in 1979.)

I've been in my office working well past 1:00 AM on countless occasions.

And, although I'm at least as educated as you, and work as hard as you, I'll bet I don't earn a third of what you do.

Why?

Because what I do is not valued by this society.

It doesn't make anyone any money.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, I'm not going to quibble about relative values to society because eventually we'll start discussing the worth of ARod to society relative to his paycheck and we'll both get sick. All I will tell you is that I started working in 1990 at 25K per year after turning down countless jobs for nearly 4x as much simply because I wanted to learn more and felt that the much lower paying job would be a better environment for that. And now I have my own firm, pay monthly health insurance for 6 people and if the phone does not ring I do not earn any income. My point is that no one gives me a paycheck and I have no guarantees that the phone will ring next month. I took a chance -- with no safety net below me -- and succeeded. Often in life the biggest risks come with the biggest rewards.

And while I'm sure you work very hard, let me know the next time you're standing in front of a jury defending someone in a death penalty case where if you lose your client may lose his life. I suspect your pressures don't equal mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

What Al said.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

David,

I don't see that as "fortunate." I agree with your assessment as to why those different careers compensate at different levels, but that's not the result of fortune.

Both you and Jeff had decisions to make at various times in your life. How hard to study, what kinds of grades to get, what schools to attend, what majors to pursue, and how to apply that knowledge to a career.

I assume that you made your choices, knowing how society valued and compensated educators. So did Jeff. So did most of the rest of us. To use hindsight and call those decisions "fortunate" is revisionist hindsight.

Unless there was some lottery deciding upon high school grades, college choices, college grades, and careers, it's free choice, not "fortune."

However, Jeff gets the same response when he says $250,000 doesn't go as far in NYC as it does in other places. If he doesn't like NYC economics, he can move to Arizona and practice there.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Please, Jeff.

You made my point for me. The $100k starting jobs that you turned down do not exist for many, many hard working, highly educated professionals.

And I wouldn't exactly equate a death sentence defense with what, say, a surgeon does. Or a fireman, for that matter.

High pressure? Try air traffic control.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"And I wouldn't exactly equate a death sentence defense with what, say, a surgeon does. Or a fireman, for that matter."

I'm sure you wouldn't, David. And how many death penalty cases have you tried in that ivory tower of yours?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

I disagree, Jim. My point was that Jim is fortunate that what he does is valued.

He doesn't make a lot of money because he works hard (loads of people working two full-time low paying jobs work much harder), or because he's highly educated (see post above), or because he took risks (try working in a meatpacking plant--now that's taking risks.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, with all respect you are really out of touch with reality. Do you have any idea how many attorneys there are in this country that struggle to make ends meet? And do you know how many attorneys take a paycheck because they are unwilling to take a risk and go it alone? Actually hard work is a great indicator of success in law.

As for meatpacking, my dad was one; I suspect if you asked him he'd tell you that my job is way harder than his ever was. Perhaps not as hard as an academic who doesn't have to pay his staff but still pretty hard.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Come off it, Jim.

Let's take a poll among a random sample of reasonably educated people. Let's ask them which professionals are "life savers."

Here are two professions that will not appear as answers:

Theoretical physicists, and criminal defense attorneys