Honest Political Question

[Que]

If you're going to talk about "more" and "less", you need to define your unit of measure.

If I understand you correctly, defining the unit of measure is tricky, since billionaires are paid very low wages. They are able to do this because income from their businesses go to foundations and other shelters. So, if they were not able to place huge amounts of money in these shelters, I would say the unit of measure would be income. Conversely, if everyone cannot place their salaries in foundations and other shelters, I would say that the unit of measure would be the amount placed in these funds, leaving middle-income job creators with the ability to pay zero taxes.

 

[tuoder]

If I understand you correctly, defining the unit of measure is tricky, since billionaires are paid very low wages. They are able to do this because income from their businesses go to foundations and other shelters. So, if they were not able to place huge amounts of money in these shelters, I would say the unit of measure would be income. Conversely, if everyone cannot place their salaries in foundations and other shelters, I would say that the unit of measure would be the amount placed in these funds, leaving middle-income job creators with the ability to pay zero taxes.

Specifically, income including salaries and investment income, not including capital gains or losses, measured as a percentage.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Also true. Hitler had as much to do with getting us out as FDR did.

Not also true. It's only true. The New Deal did absolutely nothing to stop the economic conditions that led to the end of the Depression and the beginning of America's properity following WWII. In fact America remained a weakened economy years after Europe had recovered due the the New Deal. Had it not been for the English and the French needing America's production to save Europe from a madman, had we continued to follow FDR's insane fiscal and monetary policies we'd probably still be in a depression.

Giving credit for America's emergence from its greatest financial calamity in history to two of the most avid socialists in the 20th century is telling.

If FDR did such a great job why did they pass the 22nd amendment limiting President's to two terms?

Seriously, don't quote your syllabus. Use some independant thought.

 

[Que]

Specifically, income including salaries and investment income, not including capital gains or losses, measured as a percentage.

Aren't capital gains and investment income the same thing? Bottom line, the measurement should be anything that places everyone on the same playing field. I don't want to punish the rich, but I also don't want to continue seeing the small business owner unable to get over the hump.

What is the incentive for me to start a business? If I have to pay taxes on the company and taxes on my individual income, where is my motivation? If my company makes $150,000 and I pay tax on that, then I pay myself $50,000 and have to pay tax on that, it's better to remain as an employee for many. If I am totally in left field, please let me know.

 

[tuoder]

Not also true. It's only true. The New Deal did absolutely nothing to stop the economic conditions that led to the end of the Depression and the beginning of America's properity following WWII. In fact America remained a weakened economy years after Europe had recovered due the the New Deal. Had it not been for the English and the French needing America's production to save Europe from a madman, had we continued to follow FDR's insane fiscal and monetary policies we'd probably still be in a depression.

Then why did unemployment fall, and GDP increase after they were implemented? That's not proof it helped by itself, of course.

Giving credit for America's emergence from its greatest financial calamity in history to two of the most avid socialists in the 20th century is telling.

Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism are not the same thing.

If FDR did such a great job why did they pass the 22nd amendment limiting President's to two terms?

Firstly, the 22nd amendment was passed as a result of fear that a popular president could potentially be elected until death, as happened with FDR. It's a threat to democracy. People shouldn't get too enamored with one President, lest we end up with popular tyrants like Hitler or Chavez.

Or to pose a counter-question: if FDR did so poorly, why was he elected 4 times?

Seriously, don't quote your syllabus. Use some independant thought.

This forum lacks any semblance of civil discourse.

 

[tuoder]

Aren't capital gains and investment income the same thing? Bottom line, the measurement should be anything that places everyone on the same playing field. I don't want to punish the rich, but I also don't want to continue seeing the small business owner unable to get over the hump.

What is the incentive for me to start a business? If I have to pay taxes on the company and taxes on my individual income, where is my motivation? If my company makes $150,000 and I pay tax on that, then I pay myself $50,000 and have to pay tax on that, it's better to remain as an employee for many. If I am totally in left field, please let me know.

Capital gains are the increase in value of an investment. I don't see that as income, per se. If the investment really is worth more, then it will provide more taxable dividends in the future. It isn't necessary to tax capital gains, and it punishes the addition of real value into the economy.

I think the point becomes debatable when people speculate on the prices of stocks, instead of investing long term. then the whole point of the activity is to profit through capital gain.

Still, I'd rather not tax it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Then why did unemployment fall, and GDP increase after they were implemented? That's not proof it helped by itself, of course.

Um, how many years later? And what were the true factors that affected unemployment and GDP?

Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism are not the same thing.

Wrong, because ice cream doesn't have bones.

Who said anything about Liberals or Facists. FDR and Hitler were socialists. FDR was a progressive socialist, and Hitler a Nationalist socialist. Both exhibited facist tendencies, as true solialists favor some form of government control of production.

Firstly, the 22nd amendment was passed as a result of fear that a popular president could potentially be elected until death, as happened with FDR. It's a threat to democracy. People shouldn't get too enamored with one President, lest we end up with popular tyrants like Hitler or Chavez.

Good answer. You get all 5 points.

Or to pose a counter-question: if FDR did so poorly, why was he elected 4 times?

OK, you lose 2 points for the counter-question.

Easy. Democrats wouldn't nominate anyone else. We were in a war and Americans felt it would be unwise to change President in the middle of that war. Seems like the theory was flawed, since Harry Truman did a good good of ending the war with his decision to nuke Japan.

This forum lacks any semblance of civil discourse.

Yeah, you're playing with the big boys now. If you want civil discourse stay at Starbucks with your uneducated liberal friends. If you want to learn, this is the place to do it.

Say what you think, defend it, and it's good. Parrot what someone else says with a total inability to defend yourself and it gets ugly quick.

 

[Fletch]

Capital gains are the increase in value of an investment. I don't see that as income, per se. If the investment really is worth more, then it will provide more taxable dividends in the future. It isn't necessary to tax capital gains, and it punishes the addition of real value into the economy.

I think the point becomes debatable when people speculate on the prices of stocks, instead of investing long term. then the whole point of the activity is to profit through capital gain.

Still, I'd rather not tax it.

On this we can agree.

 

[dross]

Then why did unemployment fall, and GDP increase after they were implemented? That's not proof it helped by itself, of course.



Liberalism, Fascism, and Socialism are not the same thing.



Firstly, the 22nd amendment was passed as a result of fear that a popular president could potentially be elected until death, as happened with FDR. It's a threat to democracy. People shouldn't get too enamored with one President, lest we end up with popular tyrants like Hitler or Chavez.

Or to pose a counter-question: if FDR did so poorly, why was he elected 4 times?



This forum lacks any semblance of civil discourse.

Unemployment rose, it didn't fall. The policies made the Depression worse.

Liberalism (the way it's defined in the U.S. currently), socialism, and fascism are not exactly the same, but they are all collectivist philosophies, and they all naturally tend to evolve towards less freedom.

It's been pretty civil.

 

[Que]

Capital gains are the increase in value of an investment. I don't see that as income, per se. If the investment really is worth more, then it will provide more taxable dividends in the future. It isn't necessary to tax capital gains, and it punishes the addition of real value into the economy.

I think the point becomes debatable when people speculate on the prices of stocks, instead of investing long term. then the whole point of the activity is to profit through capital gain.

Still, I'd rather not tax it.

So, if I have $100 million in capital gains and because I NEVER actually need the money, when is it taxed? As it grows, my children's children will never need it, so when is it taxed? I believe the inheritance taxes have been abolished, so when is it taxed?

I'm learning a lot and I thank everyone for your input. Some of it I don't understand, but I have noted some things for further research.

Can you address the differences in taxes between the middle class business owner and the very rich business owner. How come the ability to shelter income from taxes is not the same?

 

[mrjarrell]

The Depression of 1921 is proof that Austrian policies do work. The government did absolutely nothing and the country recovered in record time. The next depression involved loads of governmental influence and it lasted throughout the 40's. Austrian economic policies will work, they just require non-interventionist policies, something politicians and their supporters are loath to do.

 

[jsgolfman]

Marxist economics is a whole different set of ridiculousness. The few that cling to that failed idea are nuts. Keynesian economics isn't the same thing.

With this statement, it's obvious that you haven't actually read his general theory, but rather the Cliff's Notes version. You want a good read, try The Failure of the New Economics where Hazlitt rips 'ol John a new one line by friggin' line. Once you do that, come back and tell me how great Keynes economics is. You want to extoll the virtues of Keynesian economic theory, yet apparently don't even understand it. That's okay though, no one else does either because it's drivel.

 

[tuoder]

Um, how many years later? And what were the true factors that affected unemployment and GDP?

By 1935, the changes were seen, and were positive. Direct employment programs decreased unemployment and increased GDP.

Wrong, because ice cream doesn't have bones.

Who said anything about Liberals or Facists. FDR and Hitler were socialists. FDR was a progressive socialist, and Hitler a Nationalist socialist. Both exhibited facist tendencies, as true solialists favor some form of government control of production.

You claimed that I gave credit to the ending of the Great Depression to Socialists, and then named a Liberal and a Fascist.

Fascism is a nationalist ideology centered around large governmental authority in everyday life. Racism and beliefs of cultural superiority are endemic.

Socialism is any political ideology centered around direct ownership of the means of production by the people, or by their representatives. It seeks one uniform international culture, and denies any significant difference in anyone's abilities.

Liberalism is an ideology which favors freedom and equality.

Equating the three shows an astounding lack of knowledge of European history preceding WWII.

Good answer. You get all 5 points.

I just love anti-intellectualism.

OK, you lose 2 points for the counter-question.

Easy. Democrats wouldn't nominate anyone else. We were in a war and Americans felt it would be unwise to change President in the middle of that war. Seems like the theory was flawed, since Harry Truman did a good good of ending the war with his decision to nuke Japan.

I was asking the question to illustrate the error of constructing a question in that way. Americans have still never changed Presidents during a war, given the choice to.

Yeah, you're playing with the big boys now. If you want civil discourse stay at Starbucks with your uneducated liberal friends. If you want to learn, this is the place to do it.

Say what you think, defend it, and it's good. Parrot what someone else says with a total inability to defend yourself and it gets ugly quick.

I'm sorry if you don't believe in objective discussion of ideas.

 

[tuoder]

Unemployment rose, it didn't fall. The policies made the Depression worse.

Liberalism (the way it's defined in the U.S. currently), socialism, and fascism are not exactly the same, but they are all collectivist philosophies, and they all naturally tend to evolve towards less freedom.

Socialism and Fascism are both collectivist philosophies differing broadly in the method and degree.

Liberalism, as it stands today, attempts to get the trains running on time without embracing some complete system of collectivism. We'll see how it turns out.

It's been pretty civil.

Some confuse the debate of ideas with the debate of character.

 

[tuoder]

So, if I have $100 million in capital gains and because I NEVER actually need the money, when is it taxed? As it grows, my children's children will never need it, so when is it taxed? I believe the inheritance taxes have been abolished, so when is it taxed?

I'm learning a lot and I thank everyone for your input. Some of it I don't understand, but I have noted some things for further research.

Can you address the differences in taxes between the middle class business owner and the very rich business owner. How come the ability to shelter income from taxes is not the same?

It isn't because you never need the money, it is because it isn't money. It is a thing. The government should tax the eggs, not the chickens. We want more chickens so we'll have more eggs.

Tax avoidance isn't the same from small or large business because of the complexity of the system. It is easy to hire an accountant or a team of them to solve your problems if you are a big guy. Not so if you are small.

 

[tuoder]

With this statement, it's obvious that you haven't actually read his general theory, but rather the Cliff's Notes version. You want a good read, try The Failure of the New Economics where Hazlitt rips 'ol John a new one line by friggin' line. Once you do that, come back and tell me how great Keynes economics is. You want to extoll the virtues of Keynesian economic theory, yet apparently don't even understand it. That's okay though, no one else does either because it's drivel.

There's a genuine disagreement here, not a fight between evil idiots and valiant geniuses.

 

[JetGirl]

So in other words you have no idea what Austrian economics is all about, and haven't bothered to learn much beyond the name and perhaps a Wikipedia blurb.

 

[dross]

.

I should have been more specific. After the initial collapse, the economy started to recover. The GDP began to rise after the first couple of years, but unemployment stayed high. In 1935, the Supreme Court threw out several areas of the New Deal policies, and unemployment began to fall and the GDP rose to higher levels than before the crash. Roosevelt managed to implement some labor policies and coal policies that basically caused another crash in 37 and 38, kicking unemployment up nearly to early depression levels, even again as the GDP began to rise.

It was arms and food production and exports to other countries that eventually brought us down to the low levels of the forties.

The Depression wouldn't have been "Great" at all without Roosevelt's policies, dreamed up and implemented by avowed communists, some of which were working directly with the Soviet Union.

Without the war and subsequent exports, Keynes would have been a joke, but since so many want to believe his idiocy, they conveniently ignore the outside factors that gave cover to his misguided philosophy.

Even if Keynes were correct on the effect, which he is not, at best you're just easing your own pain in the moment so you can pass the check to your kids to become due with high national debt and inflated dollars.

 

[Fletch]

There's a genuine disagreement here, not a fight between evil idiots and valiant geniuses.

Unfortunately, the disagreement seems to be between those who know and those who pretend at knowing.

For example, I've spent the last ten years studying Austrian economics. I have read Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, DiLorenzo, Callahan, Hazlitt, Hayek, and Murphy, to name a few. I subscribe to their podcasts, and I listen to their speeches. I may not have a degree in Austrian economics, but I sure as hell know what it's about.

So when I said you don't actually know anything about Austrian economics, I said it with a high degree of confidence. Your summary dismissal of it had exactly the same level of truth behind it as a person claiming they don't like McDonald's because it doesn't sell hamburgers.

It appears now that you are similarly being taken to task over Keynes... I will readily admit that my knowledge of Keynes' work is far more limited, but you haven't really shown great depth in this regard.

Perhaps you thought you'd buffalo us because we're just a bunch of bumpkins, perhaps not. Either way, you might want to double-check the actual depth of your knowledge before you go around making grand assertions about what's what.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Austrian economic policies will work, they just require non-interventionist policies, something politicians and their supporters are loath to do.

When government is involved the fix is always worse than the problem.

This reminds me of a lake in Colorado. It was a very good trout lake and had been for as long as anyone could remember.
A non native grass invaded the lake.
The Government decided it needed to act, so they so they introduced grass carp.
After a few years as the grass carp population rose, the trout population had significantly dropped. It seems the carp were doing such a good job with the grasses, that they were also sucking up the trout eggs as well.

The Government seeing the new problem decided once again to act.
This time they introduced pike to the lake and after a few years the pike did it's job in reducing the carp population.
It is now almost impossible to catch a trout because it seems the pike like them too.