http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/
"...dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary."
"Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans."
Their "mission statement" on the web site states a goal of making Tea Party members look like a bunch of racisits, homophobes, and birthers.
"Crash the Tea Party was formed by a man named Jason Levin. Levin's goal is to" form organization around the country to thwart the Tea Party political goals. He plans to accomplish this objective by infiltrating the Tea Party with false members. He will then have those members "out-crazy" the tea partiers. As an example Levin says his fake members will claim President Obama is an extra-terrestrial alien when tea partiers claim Obama is foreign-born."
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m4d13-The-Crash-the-Tea-Party-movement-has-conservatives-crying-foul
I wonder how well tactics like this would play at DNC rallies?
Abbie and the Yippies! would have done something like this to discredit the Tea baggers.
Why bother, they are doing a great job of this themselves? They don't need anybody's help in looking like complete loons.
Quote from: fotd on April 13, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
Abbie and the Yippies! would have done something like this to discredit the Tea baggers.
Why bother, they are doing a great job of this themselves? They don't need anybody's help in looking like complete loons.
Yeah that individual liberty and small government stuff is pretty loony...
Quote from: fotd on April 13, 2010, 04:05:40 PM
Abbie and the Yippies! would have done something like this to discredit the Tea baggers.
Why bother, they are doing a great job of this themselves? They don't need anybody's help in looking like complete loons.
Aww, come on man! It'll be fun.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0yu3ZrcfEu4/Sq6JoLuVbTI/AAAAAAAAAHI/riI3F_Bti0M/s400/Funny+sign.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 04:12:03 PM
Yeah that individual liberty and small government stuff is pretty loony...
As long as you loons are letting loose....here:
Quote from: fotd on April 13, 2010, 04:15:00 PM
As long as you loons are letting loose....here:
Looks like he had a "y" on the end there too. Thank God for Liquid Paper.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 13, 2010, 04:16:18 PM
Looks like he had a "y" on the end there too. Thank God for Liquid Paper.
"Muslimy"?
Hmmm....
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 04:12:03 PM
Yeah that individual liberty and small government stuff is pretty loony...
You act as if we don't have those things, relative to other industrialized countries, already.
Touche' dooshay
(http://www.thomasalbert.com/politics/protest/bush_hitler.jpg)
(http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbush.jpg)
what goes around...
Quote from: fotd on April 13, 2010, 04:31:06 PM
what goes around...
You look great in pink & plaid. Were you wearing a rainbow button that day, too?
Heck of an idea crashing tea parties. If anything "racist" or otherwise offense surfaces, blame it on a crasher.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
Heck of an idea crashing tea parties. If anything "racist" or otherwise offense surfaces, blame it on a crasher.
Yeah, sounds stupid to me. I read some speculation that perhaps they aren't actually going to do it, they're just saying they are so the tea partiers will eat their own. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 07:00:12 PM
Yeah, sounds stupid to me. I read some speculation that perhaps they aren't actually going to do it, they're just saying they are so the tea partiers will eat their own. ::)
Now that's clever (if accurate).
It's all good.
Kind of the whole point to this country if you ask me. Free expression. Dissent. Letting people be their own kind of fool. Magnificent!!!
What America needs most is MORE FREE SPEECH!!!
As for big government, the only thing the Party-of-no says is no. Smaller government. I am curious as to exactly what size would be the correct size? (And "smaller" is not an answer - it just points to the lack of imagination of the "sound biters")
1/2 what it is now?
1/4??
0.8375 times what it is now??
Let's hear some numbers.
Accompanying thoughts;
Should it be big enough to continue to fend off Marxists around the globe?
Should we keep it big enough to counter the new world threat of China?
Should we reduce it to half, but keep all the infrastructure in moth balls so we can spool up again in case of emergency, crisis, or the next time a President's daddy is embarassed?
Should it be no bigger than the government of Switzerland?
How about Russia? (Keeping in mind they have over 1.2 million govt. employees just working for the central railroad.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 10:02:33 PM
It's all good.
Kind of the whole point to this country if you ask me. Free expression. Dissent. Letting people be their own kind of fool. Magnificent!!!
What America needs most is MORE FREE SPEECH!!!
As for big government, the only thing the Party-of-no says is no. Smaller government. I am curious as to exactly what size would be the correct size? (And "smaller" is not an answer - it just points to the lack of imagination of the "sound biters")
1/2 what it is now?
1/4??
0.8375 times what it is now??
Let's hear some numbers.
Accompanying thoughts;
Should it be big enough to continue to fend off Marxists around the globe?
Should we keep it big enough to counter the new world threat of China?
Should we reduce it to half, but keep all the infrastructure in moth balls so we can spool up again in case of emergency, crisis, or the next time a President's daddy is embarassed?
Should it be no bigger than the government of Switzerland?
How about Russia? (Keeping in mind they have over 1.2 million govt. employees just working for the central railroad.)
I know what I'd like to see, but you can't apply an arbitrary formula like "cut by 1/2". Every agency needs to go through and identify their waste and redunancy. Problem is, if you polled 2000 agencies, I'm willing to bet 1950 of them won't find any. Agency heads and their management minions protect their own little fiefdoms.
Bureaucracies are living, breathing creatures. And like all such, their main survival imperative is to survive and grow.
Apply the arbitrary formula. It is the only one that can even approach anything like fair. 10% across the board for all.
Or 20%. Or 5%. Anything at all to start.
One of the biggest problems I can see has no means to fix. The perks of Congress. There should be a law that NO member of Congress or CEO (or top management) of any corporation shall not have any better benefits than the lowest paid amongst us.
Freedom and JUSTICE for all....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 11:14:55 PM
Bureaucracies are living, breathing creatures. And like all such, their main survival imperative is to survive and grow.
Apply the arbitrary formula. It is the only one that can even approach anything like fair. 10% across the board for all.
Or 20%. Or 5%. Anything at all to start.
One of the biggest problems I can see has no means to fix. The perks of Congress. There should be a law that NO member of Congress or CEO (or top management) of any corporation shall not have any better benefits than the lowest paid amongst us.
Freedom and JUSTICE for all....
They have that. It's called socialism.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2010, 07:39:58 AM
They have that. It's called socialism.
Can you identify a "socialist" country in which the legislature makes only what the poorest of their countrymen make?
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 01:01:15 PM
Can you identify a "socialist" country in which the legislature makes only what the poorest of their countrymen make?
Not the part I was talking about. I could care less what the looters make.
The part you are choosing to ignore about that post IS
Quoteor CEO (or top management) of any corporation
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2010, 01:04:03 PM
Not the part I was talking about. I could care less what the looters make.
The part you are choosing to ignore about that post IS
OK, name one industrialized country that limits executive pay to a specific amount tied to what the least well-off in that country make.
(BTW, I wasn't ignoring, I was going from memory. I prefer not to read half-loony rants more than once)
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 01:06:20 PM
OK, name one industrialized country that limits executive pay to a specific amount tied to what the least well-off in that country make.
(BTW, I wasn't ignoring, I was going from memory. I prefer not to read half-loony rants more than once)
Exactly none. Why would one work hard to become a CEO or Executive if it meant that he was limited to the lowest income level? LOL
The post is beyond idiotic, but the concept of distributed wealth is a purely socialist/communist concept. . .not that any surviving socialist or communist countries have ever pushed it that far.
Heroin likes to frequently show his/her anger towards achievement with such posts. Had he/she just left it at the public service level I wouldn't have given a flip, but when you say that successful people should be rewarded with poverty you are not half-loony, you have made it all the way.
And you Nathan, while I enjoy debate with you, sometimes it seems that you disagree with people for the sake of disagreement. No offence intended.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2010, 01:17:58 PM
And you Nathan, while I enjoy debate with you, sometimes it seems that you disagree with people for the sake of disagreement. No offence intended.
It's not about disagreeing for disagreement's sake, it's pointing out that even in countries that have socialist policies, that's not how things work. If you're going to be against something, be against it for what it is, not what you think it might be.
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 01:21:59 PM
It's not about disagreeing for disagreement's sake, it's pointing out that even in countries that have socialist policies, that's not how things work. If you're going to be against something, be against it for what it is, not what you think it might be.
Point taken.
I just heard on the radio that they're inviting people to bring their tax return to the Tea Party to shred and burn.
Shredding a tax return to a liberal is like burning the flag to a conservative.
Oh! The humanity.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2010, 03:25:25 PM
I just heard on the radio that they're inviting people to bring their tax return to the Tea Party to shred and burn.
Shredding a tax return to a liberal is like burning the flag to a conservative.
Oh! The humanity.
Oh smile! Reminds me I need to go round up some goats for the Tea Party tonight!
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 03:34:18 PM
Oh smile! Reminds me I need to go round up some goats for the Tea Party tonight!
Maybe you will run into one of these geniuses:
I guess those 47% that pay no federal income taxes are not patriots.
Quote from: guido911 on April 15, 2010, 04:33:06 PM
Maybe you will run into one of these geniuses:
I guess those 47% that pay no federal income taxes are not patriots.
Where was his rainbow pin?
This may cross the line to some (doubt it will with Conan and BB):
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/87022811.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1271369085&Signature=34ICDOBIpZ%2BhF2PC%2B%2B8iW1DqQK8%3D)
It's 6 o'clock ....do you know where your local TNF Teahadists are? Just saying.....proud of you Guido. But my list sez POMPUS CONANUS and GASSIOUS are not on the board....hmmmm..... TOWNSENDSIS is missing as well.
They're probably slugging down brews but I was just wondering if they could be found out down at the fairgrounds. Maybe both....
Oh, see any similarities? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?hp
Quote from: fotd on April 15, 2010, 06:13:41 PM
It's 6 o'clock ....do you know where your local TNF Teahadists are? Just saying.....proud of you Guido. But my list sez POMPUS CONANUS and GASSIOUS are not on the board....hmmmm..... TOWNSENDSIS is missing as well.
They're probably slugging down brews but I was just wondering if they could be found out down at the fairgrounds. Maybe both....
Oh, see any similarities? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?hp
Only reason I'll be near the Fairgrounds in the next 1/2 hour is to head to my digs over at
Meadowbrook er Lortondale
I am so dissappointed in you PC. :(
Quote from: fotd on April 15, 2010, 06:35:40 PM
I am so dissappointed in you PC. :(
Yes, and I take your disappointment quite personally. Sniffle.
Quote from: fotd on April 15, 2010, 06:13:41 PM
It's 6 o'clock ....do you know where your local TNF Teahadists are? Just saying.....proud of you Guido. But my list sez POMPUS CONANUS and GASSIOUS are not on the board....hmmmm..... TOWNSENDSIS is missing as well.
They're probably slugging down brews but I was just wondering if they could be found out down at the fairgrounds. Maybe both....
Oh, see any similarities? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?hp
No, had to miss all that fun. Mow the yard and pack for Disneyland! Then off to Vegas to visit o'l Dingy Harry before he becomes just another drunk hanging out in a casino.
Please pardon the length. It's worth it if you finish it all.
Not the lowest income level. As usual there is no actual reading of the post. And this has been explained in detail before. And ignored. And never have I said that someone should be rewarded with poverty! Quite the opposite, I feel contributors should be rewarded with wealth. Or at the very least a living wage - and yes, commensurate with their contribution. That nonsense is straight from the Republicontin revisionist language/play book/script.
Rewards commensurate with the contribution is not socialism. Actually, it is the exact opposite. Only the Republicontin propaganda machine redefines words to match its dogma - SOOO much like "1984".
By far, the largest socialism in this country (and many if not most others actually) is the corporate socialism of disproportionate rewards to disproportionate contributors. It is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Sweeping statement alert: there has been NO CEO of ANY major modern corporation (say the last 30 years - we could go 40 or even 50 if desired) who has "earned" his actual compensation. Or even paid his fair share of tax on that compensation. Let's refine that with a definition of corporation with gross proceeds in excess of $1 billion. (We could go lower if you want.)
What IS idiotic is the belief that perhaps the CEO of say, GM, or Microsoft, or Exxon, or Disney, or *fill in the blank* is somehow worthy of the massive subsidies that you, me and the rest of the working people in this country have to pay for them.
I have no anger at all towards achievement - I have anger toward the lack of reward for those achievements.
First, lets take the typical CEO of that type corporation - and I will just put out some representative samples of numbers. Exact numbers can be found in any annual report for those companies.
Our sample boss makes $900,000 per year in salary. Plus a pretty nice vacation package - say 4 weeks average, which would be worth $75,000 - according to HR. Medical benefits might be in the order of $15,000 per year - again according to HR. Next we have the the $14 million in stock options and awards. Those are vested after at least 1 year, so they can be treated like as term capital gains. There are those who get that long term treatment immediately, like the venture capital guys at Cerberus.
(Us workers possibly get an ESOP. A dozen shares of stock a year or so.) Keeping in mind this all comes off the income as a deduction to the company income (maybe that's why corporations skate by paying so little income tax, so we have to make up the difference - but that is a piddly thing.
What is less piddly, is the fact he now gets to stop paying some taxes after about $110,000. About 15% worth.
Next, instead of paying the regular tax on the 'options' he gets by with only 15%. That is about another 20% discount. Wow, here we are with a 40% discount compared to you and me.
And then there is the use of the company jet. Company car with driver. Very nice digs up on mahogany row. Well, you must have seen this over the years in your career(s). So instead of paying a proportionate amount of tax to the rest of us (say those making less than $250,000, or some other number, more or less), he gets the $15,000,000 at a real bonus income tax rate of
$900,000 @ 33%
$ 90,000 @ 0%
$14,000,000 @ 15%
(I always get to pay the whole amount - no discounts here.)
Doing all the math means taxes paid are about 2,397,000.
Or a total tax rate of 15.98%.
You and others have talked about how your taxes are 40% or more. I believe it. Mine are too.
Now THAT is socialism! Corporate socialism "voted to themselves" by those in power in collusion with the boards of directors throughout corporate America. And you, me, and most of the people who read this board are subsidizing this by paying our disproportionately unfair amount of taxes! Gee, I wonder why the tea-baggers haven't thought about that? It ain't rocket science.
This is exactly why Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle has all three publicly discussed the inherent unfairness of the Bush tax cuts (not to mention previous cuts.)
Geez, how I wish I could participate!!!
I'm the one who will disagree for the sake of disagreement. Pick a side and I will take the other. Then, let's go.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2010, 08:41:34 PM
Next, instead of paying the regular tax on the 'options' he gets by with only 15%. That is about another 20% discount. Wow, here we are with a 40% discount compared to you and me.
I believe that options sold within a year of when they are exercised are taxed as income, just as short-term capital gains are. (again, IIRC)
I do agree that they can be ridiculously lucrative. I know/work for a guy on the board of one of the Houston-based energy companies who has lately been exercising options with a strike price of $2 while the company's stock price is now around $40. Needless to say, tens of thousands of shares at an instant $38 profit each is a lot of money. Especially when you consider that it's on top of the usual director's yearly salary which is more than most of us make at our day job.
Of course, as a director or officer, there are limitations on when you can sell your stock, so it's not all roses for them.
That's what I said -1 year gets long term treatment. And most of those type arrangements require the one year. Any CEO who doesn't is a fool, cause then he would have to pay 23%, or still a 10% discount.
Unless you are one of the special ones with the some of the venture capital firms who get long term treatment immediately.
I don't begrudge anyone else for what they make or don't make. It's generally assumed that people are paid commensurate with what return they bring to the organization. If someone is worth $20 an hour (including payroll taxes, insurance, etc.) to make widgets for a company, that's what that person is paid. Many things go into how much you can pay workers on the production floor including profitability (companies can't operate at a loss forever), consumer demand, and competitive price pressures in the market. The worker's production manager is worth more to the company because this manager assures all the production workers are where they need to be at a given time, they have everything they need to operate at peak efficiency.
Those who work in the plant maintenance department might be worth more to the company than production workers due to their knowledge of the machinery which must be kept running for the company to meet productivity and delivery goals.
The salesman who brings the company $5mm a year in revenue is worth more to the company (how much more depends on the margins and other factors), therefore he's paid a good deal more than the production worker. The salesperson, if they are very good is pretty much indespensible to the company especially the longer they've been with the company. The person who manages all the sales reps is worth even more to the company. He keeps the sales people motivated, helps close large deals and contracts, and keeps the CEO advised of sales projections so that production can be adjusted accordingly.
The CEO/President/COO/grand poobah must oversee all department heads and he/she has ultimate responsibility to all employees and the shareholders. A good CEO must properly manage all their resources including human, raw materials, utilities, accounting, transportation, etc. Sure there are cases where a total jagoff winds up being the CEO, Arrow Trucking is one good example. We saw what happened with Arrow. There are plenty of Peter Principle failures out there, and nepotism successions to the throne which have been less than stellar.
However, there are thousands upon thousands of corporations out there which depend on stable management and the CEO carries the most responsibility for the firm. In some cases, the CEO is also the owner of the company, they've built up the company and provided jobs for others. Why should his/her income be limited?
America is becoming less and less about "producing" within the economy. When you take a look at NAFTA which opened a bunch of plants just south of the border to help companies cut costs and the fact that we do little if anything to restrict the flow of migrant workers into the country, it's obvious Americans don't want certain types of production and agricultural jobs anymore. Price pressures on consumer goods assures that many of those goods are now cheaper to make in countries half way around the world. I never thought I'd see a day where it's become cheaper to ship American made components and raw materials to China for assembly then have them shipped back.
No one wants to pay $5 a pound for oranges, that's why we more or less turn a blind eye to undocumented workers being paid cash to do the job. Not everyone wants to pay $900 for a new Fender Stratocaster, so you can buy one made in Mexico for $400, or one made in China for $100. Consumer electronics have become virtually a commodity and pricing drives the market at the lower end. This has resulted in companies like RCA who used to have a large factory presence here in the states moving a large portion of their production (and jobs) out of the country.
People are worth certain amounts. People with more education are generally rewarded better financially for it (MBA's, MD's, JD's, PhD's) because what they do has more of a value to a company or organization. That's not to say that the least educated and most junior person on the shop floor isn't important to the company, but they are far easier to replace and their contribuition is not considered to be as large a percentage to the company as that of department managers, the sales people, or the upper management.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2010, 08:41:34 PM
Please pardon the length. It's worth it if you finish it all.
Crap! There went 5 minutes of my life.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
I don't begrudge anyone else for what they make or don't make.
I don't, either, at least when they don't make it running a business into the ground. (clawbacks are good...mmkay?)
However, I don't see how sitting on a board of directors and meeting a few days a year is worth 70,000 a year plus another 2,000,000 a year in stock options to the company. Of course it's worth it to the director, and I don't blame people for taking cushy compensation when offered.
Really. What happened to this stupid thread? It fell off the edge today.
" It's generally assumed that people are paid commensurate with what return they bring to the organization. " POMPOUS CONANUS, this really explains much about the center of your ideology. I don't ever assume that. And to say, " I don't blame people for taking cushy compensation when offered" reflects the basic difference between the right and the left. You know, individual greed versus what's best for all? Guido would refer to it as capitalism versus socialism ....but it's not. It's about integrity and right from wrong. It's about going outside the realm of regulation. Goldman Sachs operations compared to Whole Foods.
Gaspar is correct.
ah, it's not about socialism...it's about that man in the White House!
I think more people need to actually read the tax return they file before going on about not getting a tax cut.
Why would the guy swabbing toilets be worth more than the head of accounting, fotd? What about my concept is so wrong or foreign?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 02:18:34 PM
Why would the guy swabbing toilets be worth more than the head of accounting, fotd? What about my concept is so wrong or foreign?
Your post is a soiled rhetorical question based on extremes instead of looking at the abuse of those at the top.
Perhaps a better question would be why would an exec get 100 times the pay of an employee who comes up with a major marketing idea? Those tea partiers average $50,000 a year in government hand outs and personal investments make more than your man swabbing toilets while they run around Sarah Palin rallies in their RV's. It's a wild world.
Huffington Post posts most outrageous tea party signs or something:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/tea-party-signs-the-most_n_539770.html#comments
Those folks over there must be pu$$ies of the highest order.
Quote from: fotd on April 16, 2010, 02:28:15 PM
Your post is a soiled rhetorical question based on extremes instead of looking at the abuse of those at the top.
Perhaps a better question would be why would an exec get 100 times the pay of an employee who comes up with a major marketing idea? Those tea partiers average $50,000 a year in government hand outs and personal investments make more than your man swabbing toilets while they run around Sarah Palin rallies in their RV's. It's a wild world.
I got some of that, I think. . .
Are you saying that those on the top are abused, or abusers?
I don't get the $50,000 a year in government hand outs though. CBS said that most of the Tea Partiers are employed or retired.
If someone comes up with a major marketing idea they should be rewarded for it, and if they feel that they are not rewarded enough, they should take that great innovation and market it on their own. That's how this country works, God bless it!
When the bowl gets too hot you end up burning too much resin and your posts come off a bit disjointed.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4525839413_1ae54a6953.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 16, 2010, 02:52:37 PM
I got some of that, I think. . .
Are you saying that those on the top are abused, or abusers?
I don't get the $50,000 a year in government hand outs though. CBS said that most of the Tea Partiers are employed or retired.
If someone comes up with a major marketing idea they should be rewarded for it, and if they feel that they are not rewarded enough, they should take that great innovation and market it on their own. That's how this country works, God bless it!
When the bowl gets too hot you end up burning too much resin and your posts come off a bit disjointed.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4525839413_1ae54a6953.jpg)
Abusers.
Not true if you work in a corporation. Nice try though....POMPOUS GASSIOUS.
Quote from: guido911 on April 16, 2010, 02:49:19 PM
Huffington Post posts most outrageous tea party signs or something:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/tea-party-signs-the-most_n_539770.html#comments
Those folks over there must be pu$$ies of the highest order.
It's so cool the GOP brought back their "dirty trick" goons.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 02:18:34 PM
Why would the guy swabbing toilets be worth more than the head of accounting, fotd? What about my concept is so wrong or foreign?
Want to use a dirty toilet?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 16, 2010, 02:52:37 PM
If someone comes up with a major marketing idea they should be rewarded for it, and if they feel that they are not rewarded enough, they should take that great innovation and market it on their own. That's how this country works, God bless it!
As pointed out previously. You obviously have no clue how a corporate job work as far as who owns your ideas/advancements/information. Hell, if you make a "great innovation" off the clock but related to your field at work. The best you can hope for is just spending all your money on lawyers.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 17, 2010, 02:04:19 PM
As pointed out previously. You obviously have no clue how a corporate job work as far as who owns your ideas/advancements/information. Hell, if you make a "great innovation" off the clock but related to your field at work. The best you can hope for is just spending all your money on lawyers.
That's one of the bigger advantages of either being a contractor rather than a direct employee or working as an hourly employee rather than being paid on salary.
But yeah, all the employment contracts I've perused of late include a clause assigning any IP the employee creates at the employer's site to the employer, as well as any IP the employee creates that is related to the business of the employer no matter where the work is created.
Since just about any idea an employee might have related to most businesses is now patentable, at the very least as a business method, the contracts are incredibly wide-ranging.
I guess I live in an alternate universe. I out-earned my boss the last three years and he's ecstatic about it. Subsequently it allows him to give himself a raise each year. I may bring in the revenue but he still must manage people and make decisions which keep anywhere from 10 to 15 people employed. We don't begrudge each others earnings.
If you are doing work related to your salaried job, you may want to find out if your employer considers it a conflict of interest.
There are a lot of mixed feeling regarding intellectual rights in engineering. On one hand, my mind thought something up but I am being paid my salary to do that. Sometimes I am paid my salary just to do things that are not patentable. Engineering salaries would probably be lower if engineers demanded a piece of any patent with their name on it.
Quote from: nathanm on April 17, 2010, 02:51:09 PM
That's one of the bigger advantages of either being a contractor rather than a direct employee or working as an hourly employee rather than being paid on salary.
That's what I have been doing (contractor) for nearly a year now. Incredible flexibility and I work for myself. And Conan, you are in a very enviable position (almost symbiotic), which is quite common in the medical field.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 04:12:03 PM
Yeah that individual liberty and small government stuff is pretty loony...
If they value individual liberty and small government then where the eff were they during the Bush administration? Lying hypocrites.
Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
If they value individual liberty and small government then where the eff were they during the Bush administration? Lying hypocrites.
They were watching Bush protesters mimicking the Iraqi shoe thrower while now such disrespect of the office of president is unAmerican and damaging of his/her legitimacy. Effing hypocrites.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/19/bush-protest-shoes-thrown_n_159223.html
And again, the point is completely missed or deliberately ignored.
Let's set aside for a moment the discussion of whether these guys actually "earn" the money. The bigger point is that most of us (maybe Gaspar and Conan are so far above this they can't see the little ants from their altitude) have to pay in the 35, 40 or even 45% of their income as taxes, where the guy in the example pays 15.9%.
That is the point, to spell it out literally so even the most "under the influence" of Republicontin can understand.
Michael Jeffries of Abercrombie and Fitch would be another good example. $71 milliion in compensation in a year when the company made $245,000. Thousand, not million. That was down from the previous years when they did make about 250 million and 400+million.
So terrible to have to pay a whopping 15% on all that!! What a shame. I guess I can afford to keep up my 40% so he can have the life of luxury he is accustomed to...after all, I am not used to that lifestyle, so won't even know the difference.
What may well be an even bigger travesty here is that in addition to directly subsidizing these guys on their "income tax", we also get to make up the difference for the income tax the company evades by deducting those big numbers from income.
Boom! Bam!! Double whammy!
High Earner taxes aren't as bad as they claim (comparitively). I don't have a lot of long term capital gains or dividends but I still paid less on the last 35% of my income than I did the 50% before that. There are however exclusions to some of the deductions. But the beauty of it is, the more you make the less it matters. it is the people that make just over that get screwed. If I only had some huge capital gains and dividends like most at the very top and I would be in tax heaven. Couple hundred million to go. When you consider the top 400 average about 17% effective tax rate and suckers like Obama who make money from books instead of investments pay 33%. Shows you where your earnings should be coming from! I suggest everybody make a couple hundred million so you can pay low taxes too.
If I made $100 Million and had to pay $40 Million in taxes, I could still live quite nicely on the remaining $60 Million.
Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
If they value individual liberty and small government then where the eff were they during the Bush administration? Lying hypocrites.
I could be wrong as I'm not a follower of the movement.
They aren't hypocrites from that aspect as I understand what their main issues are, Bugo. The Tea Party movement was brought about by dissatisfaction with the Democrat leadership and the direction the Republican Party had taken in the previous 8 years. Many are people who thought Bush was a globalist with incredibly liberal spending policies. They also weren't happy with his sycophants in Congress either. Otherwise if these people had been satisfied with the GOP and the Bush policies, they would not have split off as a third "party". Not quite sure where President Bush cut into individual liberty, but if you say so...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 18, 2010, 08:46:04 PM
Michael Jeffries of Abercrombie and Fitch would be another good example. $71 milliion in compensation in a year when the company made $245,000. Thousand, not million. That was down from the previous years when they did make about 250 million and 400+million.
So terrible to have to pay a whopping 15% on all that!! What a shame. I guess I can afford to keep up my 40% so he can have the life of luxury he is accustomed to...after all, I am not used to that lifestyle, so won't even know the difference.
= class envy? Don't know what to tell you. Unless you are a shareholder who lost money in Abercrombie, why do you care? Assuming 100% of his taxable income was taxed at 15%, he still would have paid $10.65 million in taxes.
Are you pissed off President Obama only paid about 33% in taxes on his income of $5.6mm, and got to have government room & board to boot?
When policy makers start paying 50 to 60% tax rates on income (it's amazing how much better off legislators become after being elected to office, they wind up making far more than just their Congressional or Senate salary) then fine, the rest of the wealthy can do the same.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2010, 09:42:07 AM
= class envy? Don't know what to tell you. Unless you are a shareholder who lost money in Abercrombie, why do you care? Assuming 100% of his taxes were taxed at 15%, he still would have paid $10.65 million in taxes.
Are you pissed off President Obama only paid about 33% in taxes on his income of $5.6mm, and got to have government room & board to boot?
When policy makers start paying 50 to 60% tax rates on income (it's amazing how much better off legislators become after being elected to office, they wind up making far more than just their Congressional or Senate salary) then fine, the rest of the wealthy can do the same.
Indeed, Obama is a sucker for creating and selling something instead of making his money off the stock market. Thus he pays double the % what the top 400 earners in the US pay. They should keep capital gains at the income tax rate and then cap it at 30%. Then drop the 25% and 28% tax brackets down a couple percent to even out the income generated.
Republicans grumble grumble grumble about taxes. You know why we have taxes, because we have spending. Do you know how you lower taxes, you lower spending. You just don't lower taxes and increase the deficit (which they have done every time they have cut taxes the last 30 years). When is the last time the country spent less money than the year before? Hasn't been while i have been alive.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 19, 2010, 10:13:16 AM
Republicans grumble grumble grumble about taxes. You know why we have taxes, because we have spending. Do you know how you lower taxes, you lower spending. You just don't lower taxes and increase the deficit (which they have done every time they have cut taxes the last 30 years). When is the last time the country spent less money than the year before? Hasn't been while i have been alive.
I agree. Lower taxes should be a reward for lower spending. Although it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue. Simply unfortunate that was done at a time of ramping up spending for military escapades, unprecidented natural disasters, and a totally moronic increase in discretionary domestic spending.
Class envy? Why should I care? Well, maybe if one were naive enough to believe in "liberty and justice for all" it might be. But it isn't, it is just plain old concern/irritation/anger/whatever you want to call it that we the regular people cannot afford to buy our very own personal Senators and Representatives like Big Business and Wall Street can. (Yeah, I know...life's unfair)
Ok, maybe third time to say the same thing is a charm...comprehension will ensue.
I care, as everyone who is in the lower brackets should care because WE are subsidizing those CEO's. They pay 15 or 16% and WE pay 40%.
And they are NOT paying that on an investment, they are paying it on their annual compensation.
And it's even worse with some of the big venture capital guys, because they don't have to wait the token 1 year.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
I agree. Lower taxes should be a reward for lower spending. Although it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue. Simply unfortunate that was done at a time of ramping up spending for military escapades, unprecidented natural disasters, and a totally moronic increase in discretionary domestic spending.
The Republicans always come up with some excuse to spend away. Which overspending for social programs is socialism for the poor. Overspending to corporations is takes from the many and gives to the few, just on the other side.
Kudos to the Democrats for reigning in all that crazy spending!
(insert appropriate Republican, Bush, neo-con action as justification for more stupidity here)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Kudos to the Democrats for reigning in all that crazy spending!
(insert appropriate Republican, Bush, neo-con action as justification for more stupidity here)
Clinton (Plus republican House) had 50% less government spending increases than the average of Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr. Reagan +57%, Bush Jr +60%, Bush Sr +22% (4 years). Clinton had an outlay increase of 26%.
I think we are all well versed in the fiscal restraint of the Clinton years. That doesn't address what is going on right now though.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts probably increased revenue. I've seen no peer-reviewed studies that suggested the Bush tax cuts did the same. The pre-Reagan tax rates were much higher than they were when Bush cut taxes, hence the difference in response.
I believe Pres. JFK tax cuts also increased fed revenue.
Every single one of the tax cuts trotted out by the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch consortium as being sooooo good for the economy was in fact followed within a couple of years by tax increases.
That is the pattern of economic recovery that works. Tax cut followed by increases very soon afterward.
Not what we had in 2001 and 2003. Hence the problems that have dogged this economy for many years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2010, 05:46:18 PM
I believe Pres. JFK tax cuts also increased fed revenue.
I wouldn't be surprised. Reducing the top marginal rate from 90% probably did free up quite a bit of money for investment.
The big effect of cutting from 91% to 70% was that there were fewer deductions, kind of offsetting the effect of the cut a little bit.
Back when the rate went up to 91% it was specifically for one person - John D. Rockefeller. He was the only one who came even close.
Look at the rate schedules; the highest rate in 1963 was 91% on income over about $200,000. There were only a few thousand in the whole country who made that kind of dough. And they got massive deductions, plus the same kind of capital gains treatment, so that anyone who had even a modestly competent accountant got to enjoy very low effective rates.
Sound familiar?? Kind of like today, the richest 0.1% always gets the best rate. It pays to own Congress.
Red,
Making 100 million when you get to treat it as long term capital gain is vastly different from making 100 million and treating it as regular income. $25 million difference. If you were making the choice, which would you choose? (Quick ethics check)
Would you treat it as what it is - income - or would you go for the long term capital gain??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 20, 2010, 07:05:27 AM
Red,
Making 100 million when you get to treat it as long term capital gain is vastly different from making 100 million and treating it as regular income. $25 million difference. If you were making the choice, which would you choose? (Quick ethics check)
Would you treat it as what it is - income - or would you go for the long term capital gain??
You missed the point. At some income level, the government can take a BIG chunk of your money and you still have enough to live comfortably. Many of these people are setting our tax rates.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2010, 05:27:44 PM
The Reagan tax cuts probably increased revenue. I've seen no peer-reviewed studies that suggested the Bush tax cuts did the same. The pre-Reagan tax rates were much higher than they were when Bush cut taxes, hence the difference in response.
(http://randysright.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/head_in_sand.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?pagewanted=print
"The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."
The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.
Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798
"Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase."
Might have something to do with the economy Conan. Considering that after increasing government spending by 38% (2000 vs 2005) Bush was able to increase Tax revenue by 6.3% (2000 vs 2005). Also the tax cuts were done in 2003? Also 20% of that cut in the deficit was social security surpluses. But lets spin the numbers.. Clinton raised taxes and ended up 70% in revenue, that would be unpossible.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 20, 2010, 09:39:43 AM
Might have something to do with the economy Conan. Considering that after increasing government spending by 38% (2000 vs 2005) Bush was able to increase Tax revenue by 6.3% (2000 vs 2005). Also the tax cuts were done in 2003? Also 20% of that cut in the deficit was social security surpluses. But lets spin the numbers.. Clinton raised taxes and ended up 70% in revenue, that would be unpossible.
That's one thing you can count on good liberals for, they will never give Bush credit for anything good.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 09:50:17 AM
That's one thing you can count on good liberals for, they will never give Bush credit for anything good.
That is an unfair comment. I think trogdor was showing real numbers and real policy decisions by former President Bush. The way that he fixed the economy was to hire hundreds of thousands of government employees.
I also think of myself as a good liberal and I really appreciated Bush's stance and actions on immigration. He tried to find ways to create jobs and get illegal citiizens paying into the system and become legal.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 09:50:17 AM
That's one thing you can count on good liberals for, they will never give Bush credit for anything good.
You act like the economy has 1 force, taxes. When Revenue increases it is only because taxes got cut. It doesn't matter what had happened previously. They don't account for the fact that in 2003 and 2004 we had the lowest interest rate since forever. Or that
"For instance, from 2003 through the third quarter of 2008, U.S. households extracted $2.3 trillion of equity from their homes in the form of home equity loans and cash-out refinancings." http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su09_BailyLund.pdf (http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su09_BailyLund.pdf) That would have nothing to do with it! You can tell from the numbers that when it came down to it, we gave back most of the revenue increases that your story was touting.
Year Revenue Increase Inflation
2000 2025.2 3.38%
2001 1991.1 -1.68% 2.83%
2002 1853.1 -6.93% 1.59%
2003 1782.3 -3.82% 2.27%
2004 1880.1 5.49% 2.68%
2005 2153.6 14.55% 3.39%
2006 2406.9 11.76% 3.24%
2007 2568 6.69% 2.85%
2008 2524 -1.71% 3.85%
2009 2104.6 -16.62% -0.34%
There are too many variables and the numbers show different things depending on the time frame used and other outside events.
Aaah, fairness. Another hollow liberal mantra.
Were you guys aware there was an increase in cap gains and corporate tax reciepts? Apparently not.
Increased gov't payroll would not create such a result. I don't even know why I bother citing evidence, you guys don't appear to read it. After this post, I'll just start pulling numbers out of my arse and not cite sources.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st307?pg=7
"After the 2003 capital gains tax cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. The budget deficit fell from $401 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. Capital gains revenues increased from $55 billion in 2002 to an estimated $110 billion for 2006. Every indicator shows that the 2003 investment tax cuts helped increase growth, stock market values and federal tax receipts."
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 10:59:57 AM
Aaah, fairness. Another hollow liberal mantra.
Were you guys aware there was an increase in cap gains and corporate tax reciepts? Apparently not.
Increased gov't payroll would not create such a result. I don't even know why I bother citing evidence, you guys don't appear to read it. After this post, I'll just start pulling numbers out of my arse and not cite sources.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st307?pg=7
"After the 2003 capital gains tax cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. The budget deficit fell from $401 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. Capital gains revenues increased from $55 billion in 2002 to an estimated $110 billion for 2006. Every indicator shows that the 2003 investment tax cuts helped increase growth, stock market values and federal tax receipts."
I think you might be on to something here. The tax income from capital gains follows the DJIA. <Golf Clap>
Of course these tax revenues are below 1997 and 1998 when the tax was 5% higher. Bbbbbut there was was a stock market bubble. Which would mean that there are other forces to tax revenue other than the tax percentage.
All my $ sources (on previous post) were from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf Got the inflation from some random website :D
I will concede that lowering the capital gains tax rate to less than half of the highest tax rate will result in more investment in the stock market from the richest in the country. It will also allow companies to shift income to highly compensated employees over to stock options which will only be taxed at 15% instead of 35%. Of course that would decrease tax received in other places. 20% less in taxes makes the risk of the stock market worth it. This would reduce their investment in small businesses that weren't publicly traded (they would have to pay 35% taxes on that).
Quote from: Trogdor on April 20, 2010, 10:56:56 AM
You act like the economy has 1 force, taxes. When Revenue increases it is only because taxes got cut. It doesn't matter what had happened previously. They don't account for the fact that in 2003 and 2004 we had the lowest interest rate since forever. Or that "For instance, from 2003 through the third quarter of 2008, U.S. households extracted $2.3 trillion of equity from their homes in the form of home equity loans and cash-out refinancings." http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su09_BailyLund.pdf (http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su09_BailyLund.pdf) That would have nothing to do with it! You can tell from the numbers that when it came down to it, we gave back most of the revenue increases that your story was touting.
Year Revenue Increase Inflation
2000 2025.2 3.38%
2001 1991.1 -1.68% 2.83%
2002 1853.1 -6.93% 1.59%
2003 1782.3 -3.82% 2.27%
2004 1880.1 5.49% 2.68%
2005 2153.6 14.55% 3.39%
2006 2406.9 11.76% 3.24%
2007 2568 6.69% 2.85%
2008 2524 -1.71% 3.85%
2009 2104.6 -16.62% -0.34%
There are too many variables and the numbers show different things depending on the time frame used and other outside events.
False assumption on my beliefs...again. Of course there's more than one force driving the economy, you simply choosing to ignore one of them because it might be a positive reflection on the Bush administration doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Many learned economists agree this phenomena exists and there's historical data to prove it has happened in the past with the Kennedy and Reagan cuts as well as data which suggests this happened in the Bush II years.
But, why did the Obama administration make tax cuts and credits the centerpiece of their economic recovery efforts if they are not effective? Can you answer that?
Low interest rates can help account for increased corporate revenues via corporate investment in capital equipment and expanding payrolls, increased consumer activity (buying homes, cars, consumer goods) or if invested in capital gain type investments. There's a lot of documentation existing to show that capital gains tax revenue (a kind of tax revenue typically associated with top income earners) has increased every time cap gains rates have dropped.
If you are inferring people cashing in on home equity directly influenced tax reciepts, that's incorrect unless you are implying that money was spent on consumption which would have been taxed via corporate income or invested and resulted in gains. Home equity, in the form of loan proceeds is not taxable income unless you default on the loan. In fact, no loan proceeds are treated as income unless you fail to repay. Please feel free to clarify.
Careful though, you are on the verge of actually admitting the economy was good during the Bush II years. Isn't that the ultimate sin amongst liberals? ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 10:59:57 AM
Aaah, fairness. Another hollow liberal judeo/christian mantra.
Were you guys aware there was an increase in cap gains and corporate tax reciepts? Apparently not.
Increased gov't payroll would not create such a result. I don't even know why I bother citing evidence, you guys don't appear to read it. After this post, I'll just start pulling numbers out of my arse and not cite sources.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st307?pg=7
"After the 2003 capital gains tax cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. The budget deficit fell from $401 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. Capital gains revenues increased from $55 billion in 2002 to an estimated $110 billion for 2006. Every indicator shows that the 2003 investment tax cuts growth helped increase growth tax receipts, inflated stock market values and federal tax receipts spending."
Just rearranging the words, Pompous Conanus. Not to disagree about the cut in cap gains rate, but sweet Jesus let's not lose sight of that place and that time. Please, stop pulling things out of your arse...it is Earth Day after all.....
If the economy improved during Bush II daze, it wasn't anything they did in Washington except turn their heads to bankster greed.
Quote from: fotd on April 20, 2010, 11:36:28 AM
If the economy improved during Bush II daze, it wasn't anything they did in Washington except turn their heads to bankster greed.
Any idea how much smut comes up when you Google the term "turn your head and cough" ?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/155/439951453_f7779e8d31_m.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 11:31:35 AM
But, why did the Obama administration make tax cuts and credits the centerpiece of their economic recovery efforts if they are not effective? Can you answer that?
Tax cut was equal among most of the population. Instead of 1% getting 95% of the tax cuts. It is the same thing that Bush did when he sent everybody checks (If giving 95% of the tax cut revenue to 1% the best for the economy why didn't Bush just do the same thing again to stimulate the economy?).
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 11:31:35 AM
There's a lot of documentation existing to show that capital gains tax revenue (a kind of tax revenue typically associated with top income earners) has increased every time cap gains rates have dropped.
People have the option of selling stock. So lower tax rates coming up will encourage to sell (large stock gain = large 1 time capital gains tax). Also, it encourages people in the top income bracket to invest in capital gains (20% off your taxes, its like buying form Kohls). But then you will have less investment in small businesses (own part of a small business like a moron and you will be paying 35%). So you invest in the stock market. The small business would have to make 20% more money to break even after taxes. When you lower the tax rate you reallocate where tax is being paid and the rate you are paying on it. It is also based largely on what the Dow does. It is very difficult to determine that it is not just a shift in how people are paid and how money is invested.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 20, 2010, 11:31:35 AM
If you are inferring people cashing in on home equity directly influenced tax reciepts, that's incorrect unless you are implying that money was spent on consumption which would have been taxed via corporate income or invested and resulted in gains. Home equity, in the form of loan proceeds is not taxable income unless you default on the loan. In fact, no loan proceeds are treated as income unless you fail to repay. Please feel free to clarify.
I am saying that people took home equity loans out to 1) pay for new houses (paying builders and realtors) 2) Make improvements on their houses 3) Blow it on worthless crap. People took the money out for a reason they didn't just take it out for fun. They took it out to spend it. If they didn't spend it you would have a huge spike in the amount of savings in the US.
Forgot to add that investment in the stock market was also greatly encouraged due to our wonderful 1% savings interest rates.
You can also say that a decrease in capital gains tax rate leads to a large stock market correction.
1987 (the tax increased that year, but we will just say it was from the drop the previous 8 years).
1990 (rate dropped) Dow corrected from 2961 to 2398 -23%
1998 (rate drop 1997) Dow corrected from 9337 to 7640 -22%
Then of course dropping back down to 7000 in 2009 from the 14000 high. Sometimes it gets delayed. Of course the tax cut is expiring so the market should still be declining.