Yesterday on the senate floor, Harry Reid summed up everything that is wrong with liberal philosophy. The complete disconnect from reality, the total misunderstanding of the free market, and the blindness toward the private sector. He created a mantra that sets the tone for the final and inevitable dismantling of our capitalist system, and usher in the Socialist Revolution in America. He said: "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don't exist."
Not that it matters any more, but lets analyze his statement.
Using 2007 data, there were 392,000 Americans who filed tax returns with an adjusted gross income above $1 million. Of those Americans, 273,000 were defined as "small business owners." This means that close to 70% of millionaires are small businesses. Those unicorns employ 50% of the american public and create 65% of the new jobs.
The remainder of employment in the country comes from the Large businesses also owned by unicorns employing thousands of Americans. Additionally thousands of these unicorns invest as venture capitalists for entrepreneurs looking to start businesses. Currently, banks aren't as willing to lend to as many new businesses as in the past, and without unicorns many new businesses would never see the light of day.
Closer to home. . . I have a family member who started a new business in October of last year. Capital was difficult to find, but over a cup of coffee, a few unicorns were willing to write a check. So far about 30 people have new jobs because of that, and out of that 30, 3 new business owners have been created. Within another year that will grow to over a hundred new jobs and about 10 new business owners.
To Harry and many other Americans, your station in life is static. You are poor, or rich, or middle class. To Harry, each of those stations represents a voting block, and the more tension he can stir up against the minority of those groups (the wealthy), the more support he can glean from the majority. Unfortunately, he has it wrong. Why? Because these stations are not static. They move, and their primary direction is up.
What this means is that when you look at numbers such as those that Reid likes to talk about illustrating how the incomes of the rich have grown 275% while the bottom have only grown 80% you only get a snapshot of a group over time. The calculation they use to arrive at this, the Gini coefficient, does not apply in this country because our free market system promotes income mobility more than any country in the world. Corrado Gini developed this calculation back in 1912 and it works very well in calculating income inequality in a static environment where young people go to work, and work the same jobs for their entire lives based on socioeconomic state, cast, class, or other static determiners. You can't apply the same logic here, because today's poor are tomorrow's middle class, and today's middle-class are tomorrow's rich.
The more interesting part is that mobility also goes the other direction, primarily at the top levels. According to the treasury department, only 75% of the top income earners (remember, we are talking about individuals, not ratios) see their income fall over a decade.
Using available data, the Treasury's study shows that within just under 10 years the average US worker sees his/her income increase by about 24%, and lower income individuals increase more than the higher income individuals.
Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. Important aspects of fairness are that those in the small rooms have an opportunity to move to a better one, and that the luxurious rooms are not always occupied by the same people. The frequency with which people move between rooms is a crucial aspect of the trends in income inequality in the United States.
The key findings of this study include:
• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
So, it's not important that the poor are not amassing wealth as fast as the rich. What's important is that over a relatively short period of time the poor and the middle-class are becoming the rich, and as a whole the total wealth (adjusted for inflation) among everyone in the United States is increasing. We are apparently a country where everyone can be a unicorn if believe that they can.
The sad part is that the Class Warfare mime is working, and historically it always works, because it's more acceptable to some people to embrace their status as a product of the actions of others, especially when that is what they are spoon-fed by their leaders to build political power structures.
Oh, the humanity.
You're a better man than me Nathan. Couldn't get past the first paragraph. Vintage Gas.
^^^ Thank you, that punctuates what I've said.
Unfortunately, at least in regards to my own view, you have exhausted whatever credibility you ever had with your repetitious Fox rants and your insistence that the world operates exactly how you see and experience it. Like Glen Beck and most narrow minded people you only surround yourself with others who share that world and then rebuke as incredulous anything or anyone who doesn't follow your leaders. You are a one way valve.
edit: Okay, I realize that sounded really rude. I still like your sense of humor and your graphic skills seem top notch. i'm suspicious of your business theories and your politics are just everyday Yahoo comments section variety stuff with some links. Now I at least feel better about myself. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on December 13, 2011, 10:16:50 AM
You're a better man than me Nathan. Couldn't get past the first paragraph. Vintage Gas.
Come on now. I read your, Wevsus' and Nathan's stuff. I have to admit to skipping most of TTC's stuff.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
Oh, the humanity.
10 minutes to respond? You must have been otherwise occupied.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2011, 10:04:43 AM
Why? Because these stations are not static. They move, and their primary direction is up.
Using available data, the Treasury's study shows that within just under 10 years the average US worker sees his/her income increase by about 24%, and lower income individuals increase more than the higher income individuals.
So, it's not important that the poor are not amassing wealth as fast as the rich. What's important is that over a relatively short period of time the poor and the middle-class are becoming the rich, and as a whole the total wealth (adjusted for inflation) among everyone in the United States is increasing. We are apparently a country where everyone can be a unicorn if believe that they can.
Traditionally the direction was up from about 1900 until about 30 years ago. No more.
Increase in income by 24%, when adjusted for inflation over those 30 years means a decrease in standard of living by 24%* (may actually be more - just a number chosen for symmetry - but a realistic number). Real, adjusted terms - income going down - for decades.
And the 'amassing wealth' paragraph is the Big Lie they have you hooked on. The understanding is just not there, or the denial overwhelms all reality - increasing income at a slower rate than increasing cost to live IS actually a DECREASE!
Which is what Fox, et al just don't want you to understand.
What I like about Gassie's arguments is that it constructs a tortured, elaborate theory to address an obvious problem. To wit:
Raises Taxes On the Rich To Reward Job Creators, (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html) by Nick Hanauer, venture capitalist from Seattle.
Quote"I'm a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I've started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I've never been a "job creator." I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."
In other words -- and ad infinitum -- our problems are driven to a great degree on the demand-side.
And when the demand is directed toward buying items from China, the situation is aggravated more.
What the world needs is a "Made in USA" web site, so people could look at items they plan to buy, and try to more toward the made here, if it is possible.
Ooops. Too late - there is one! Actually, several.
http://www.madeinusa.org/
Quote from: we vs us on December 13, 2011, 10:56:20 AM
"I'm a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I've started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I've never been a "job creator." I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."
So this guy is saying that all the businesses he has started or helped to start have failed. I guess most do eventually or they just end if a family business isn't sold or passed to someone else. In the mean time, there were jobs for a while. Maybe a while is a couple years, maybe longer. The days of working for one company for a lifetime are (mostly) gone.
Even if all the companies he created fail quickly, he has spread some money around trying to get them started. Isn't that one of your goals?
Your logic doesn't work, because when you adjust for cost of living increase, you're also taking into account inflation as part of that index.
To add both would be double-dipping...Sebelious style!
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 11:15:09 AM
So this guy is saying that all the businesses he has started or helped to start have failed. I guess most do eventually or they just end if a family business isn't sold or passed to someone else. In the mean time, there were jobs for a while. Maybe a while is a couple years, maybe longer. The days of working for one company for a lifetime are (mostly) gone.
Even if all the companies he created fail quickly, he has spread some money around trying to get them started. Isn't that one of your goals?
Indeed. He definitely hired some people -- for a time. IMO, the "radical" thing this guy's doing, though, is to bring demand back into the equation as an equally weighted concern. Tragically, as he rightly points out, even the Democrats aren't talking about it.
Red, What I got from his remarks was that consumer demand, accurately assessed and acted upon by a business, creates the jobs. Without the demand or with erroneous feedback to the businessman as to the nature of that demand, a wealthy person cannot just create jobs. It is an important distinction because it broadens the current scope of thinking as to how jobs are created.
Some would have you believe that jobs appear or disappear depending on how rich or how well treated the 1% feels, the quality of the economy they work in, or their taxes, party affiliation, etc. It is more accurate to note that guys like Jobs and Gates were not wealthy when they started their companies. They accurately pinpointed a demand that Xerox, IBM and others had failed to exploit and seized upon it. ALCOA was another example. They were started during the depression and were not very profitable but were able to hold on till the demand created by WWII made them indispensable.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 13, 2011, 11:32:47 AM
Red, What I got from his remarks was that consumer demand, accurately assessed and acted upon by a business, creates the jobs. Without the demand or with erroneous feedback to the businessman as to the nature of that demand, a wealthy person cannot just create jobs. It is an important distinction because it broadens the current scope of thinking as to how jobs are created.
Some would have you believe that jobs appear or disappear depending on how rich or how well treated the 1% feels, the quality of the economy they work in, or their taxes, party affiliation, etc. It is more accurate to note that guys like Jobs and Gates were not wealthy when they started their companies. They accurately pinpointed a demand that Xerox, IBM and others had failed to exploit and seized upon it. ALCOA was another example. They were started during the depression and were not very profitable but were able to hold on till the demand created by WWII made them indispensable.
A product or service with no demand will obviously fail. The wealthy can directly employ people but I don't believe that is really the subject here. Some products will create their own demand, for a while. Think Pet Rock. There will always be the basement tinkerers that make it big. Maybe they needed some money to start production, maybe not. Gates, Jobs, Hewlett & Packard are well known because their success is relatively uncommon. Person X borrows huge sum of money, makes successful business and employs 45 people does not make the news. The demand for personal computers was largely created by the presence of easy to use personal computers. There were small computers before the IBM PC, Commodore/Vic series and the Apple but they were largely relegated to hobbyists and people handy with a soldering iron and screwdriver who were literate in hexadecimal. My first computer, which dad and I shared, was a Commodore 64. I don't remember thinking in 1977 that I really needed a personal computer. I had my HP calculator. Compared to a slide rule, it was fabulous.
Demand is certainly a requirement for a sustained business. Demand without a business to supply it will go unsatisfied. The business to supply it may exist. If it doesn't, more often than not it will be created or financed by someone not living from paycheck to paycheck. Are the suppliers all 1%ers? Obviously not. Are all the 1%ers only paying 15% on their Federal Income Tax? Not according to Table 8, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 Please note some of the brackets that do not include the upper percentages. Anticipating Heiron, closing down some of the special advantages in getting to the AGI from gross income for the really wealthy would be acceptable to me. There are some too for "regular" people like the 401K that I use to knock my gross income down by 15%. While that is available to the rich, it is limited by the number of dollars as well as percentage so it only becomes a small number in the noise for the really wealthy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 12:43:50 PM
A product or service with no demand will obviously fail. The wealthy can directly employ people but I don't believe that is really the subject here. Some products will create their own demand, for a while. Think Pet Rock. There will always be the basement tinkerers that make it big. Maybe they needed some money to start production, maybe not. Gates, Jobs, Hewlett & Packard are well known because their success is relatively uncommon. Person X borrows huge sum of money, makes successful business and employs 45 people does not make the news. The demand for personal computers was largely created by the presence of easy to use personal computers. There were small computers before the IBM PC, Commodore/Vic series and the Apple but they were largely relegated to hobbyists and people handy with a soldering iron and screwdriver who were literate in hexadecimal. My first computer, which dad and I shared, was a Commodore 64. I don't remember thinking in 1977 that I really needed a personal computer. I had my HP calculator. Compared to a slide rule, it was fabulous.
Demand is certainly a requirement for a sustained business. Demand without a business to supply it will go unsatisfied. The business to supply it may exist. If it doesn't, more often than not it will be created or financed by someone not living from paycheck to paycheck. Are the suppliers all 1%ers? Obviously not. Are all the 1%ers only paying 15% on their Federal Income Tax? Not according to Table 8, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 Please note some of the brackets that do not include the upper percentages. Anticipating Heiron, closing down some of the special advantages in getting to the AGI from gross income for the really wealthy would be acceptable to me. There are some too for "regular" people like the 401K that I use to knock my gross income down by 15%. While that is available to the rich, it is limited by the number of dollars as well as percentage so it only becomes a small number in the noise for the really wealthy.
Red, the demand for personal computers was existing. It simply was not constructed in the form of those particular "home" computers. The demand was in the form of hand held calculators, electric typewriters, micro-fiche, filing cabinets, compositing machines, adding machines, copiers etc. The personal computers did not create the demand, they were the result of it.
I also take issue with your characterization of Gates, et. al. being exceptions. In my readings and experience, they are not. Wealthy 1% 'ers simply are not the driving force behind job creation. Its the little guys who are most able to gauge and attempt to satisfy the market because they seldom need or have access to the same resources that a huge corporation uses. They have first hand experience with the market which the corporation has to buy. Many small employers disappear because the larger operations frankly, are more capable of exploiting their ideas.
"Demand without a business to supply it will go unsatisfied." This also is counter to our experience. Without the micro-chips that run business computers, the consumer would have continued using file cabinets, typewriters, micro-fiche, compositors, mimeographs and adding machines.
The key is the balance of consumer demand and business exploitation. They are both equal.
I can tell someone might listen to that channel that has Rush on it. Been having to listen to what I consider the "Rush Comedy Hour" and the show thats on around the same time, at the jobsite I am currently working at lol. This threads subject was part of yesterdays "talk". I also kept hearing about how Democrats are for Fascism, kind of defined as individuals owning the companies but the government making the choices setting rules, what we can and can't buy, etc. versus socialism I guess which they also rant about. And also the "Nanny State" where the government knows whats best for us and protects us, etc. But yet soon as I go to the grocery store to by a bottle of wine, those die hard conservatives sure know how to regulate a business and protect me and my family don't they? Regulating pollution hurts businesses and has nothing to do with a persons health let the market decide, etc. Wine, tooootally different story, regulate and protect away. And there are probably a dozen other examples one could think of. Try to get rail started downtown and those conservatives will holler that the gov. shouldn't be in the transportation business. Haven't heard a peep about the gov. spending over 100million a mile to widen the highway by my house or money to widen yet another intersection in south Tulsa, fill potholes, remove snow, etc.
I really wish conservatives would follow their own talking points and fundamental beliefs. But what I see is example after example of them demonizing what someone else may want from the government, but if they want what is essentially exactly the same type of thing from the government, Oh, thats perfectly fine and dandy, it's just naturally the way it should be no questions asked, no outrage here.
And here we are locally talking about trash service. Whats the government doing in the trash business? Why arent local conservatives, the guys listening to this radio station, up in arms about the government having anything to do with who picks up my trash? Let the free market decide. It's like they conveniently ignore some issues that run completely counter to their philosophies and incessantly hammer away at others, and then call the Democrats hypocrits at every turn?
I am an Independent, so a pox on both their houses lol.
Morning after pill,,, a blastocyst is human life and should not be harmed or destroyed. Start talking about how its a few cells etc. and they say "Human life is human life and should not be destroyed or "killed" no matter what" and its a black and white issue no shades of grey allowed. But again they don't really mean that for if they did, pulling out a molar under those criteria would be destroying human life. My molar isn't "dog life", it's human and it's alive, but there is no problem with removing it (something thats more fully human, has more cell differentiation, etc. than a blastocyst) and destroying it in a ghastly fashion. "Oh, no that's not the same thing" they say. But if "I" say somethings not the same thing, I am dealing in shades of grey when things are black and white... Human life is human life...
None of us are perfect and surely have some hypocrisy somewhere in what we believe and think. But these last couple of days listening to hypocrytical people angrily demonize others for being hypocrits, has definitely been an eye opener. I cant quite decide if its a comedy show or a tragedy. Tragic comedy?
Quote from: TheArtist on December 13, 2011, 01:11:09 PM
I can tell someone might listen to that channel that has Rush on it. Been having to listen to what I consider the "Rush Comedy Hour" and the show thats on around the same time, at the jobsite I am currently working at lol. This threads subject was part of yesterdays "talk". I also kept hearing about how Democrats are for Fascism, kind of defined as individuals owning the companies but the government making the choices setting rules, what we can and can't buy, etc. versus socialism I guess which they also rant about. And also the "Nanny State" where the government knows whats best for us and protects us, etc. But yet soon as I go to the grocery store to by a bottle of wine, those die hard conservatives sure know how to regulate a business and protect me and my family don't they? Regulating pollution hurts businesses and has nothing to do with a persons health let the market decide, etc. Wine, tooootally different story, regulate and protect away. And there are probably a dozen other examples one could think of. Try to get rail started downtown and those conservatives will holler that the gov. shouldn't be in the transportation business. Haven't heard a peep about the gov. spending over 100million a mile to widen the highway by my house or money to widen yet another intersection in south Tulsa, fill potholes, remove snow, etc.
I really wish conservatives would follow their own talking points and fundamental beliefs. But what I see is example after example of them demonizing what someone else may want from the government, but if they want what is essentially exactly the same type of thing from the government, Oh, thats perfectly fine and dandy, it's just naturally the way it should be no questions asked, no outrage here.
And here we are locally talking about trash service. Whats the government doing in the trash business? Why arent local conservatives, the guys listening to this radio station, up in arms about the government having anything to do with who picks up my trash? Let the free market decide. It's like they conveniently ignore some issues that run completely counter to their philosophies and incessantly hammer away at others, and then call the Democrats hypocrits at every turn?
I am an Independent, so a pox on both their houses lol.
Morning after pill,,, a blastocyst is human life and should not be harmed or destroyed. Start talking about how its a few cells etc. and they say "Human life is human life and should not be destroyed or "killed" no matter what" and its a black and white issue no shades of grey allowed. But again they don't really mean that for if they did, pulling out a molar under those criteria would be destroying human life. My molar isn't "dog life", it's human and it's alive, but there is no problem with removing it (something thats more fully human, has more cell differentiation, etc. than a blastocyst) and destroying it in a ghastly fashion. "Oh, no that's not the same thing" they say. But if "I" say somethings not the same thing, I am dealing in shades of grey when things are black and white... Human life is human life...
None of us are perfect and surely have some hypocrisy somewhere in what we believe and think. But these last couple of days listening to hypocrytical people angrily demonize others for being hypocrits, has definitely been an eye opener. I cant quite decide if its a comedy show or a tragedy. Tragic comedy?
Actually, the post was started based on a subject that has lit up Twitter and Youtube for the past couple of days. It's a video of Harry Reid on the Senate floor.
I do not listen to Rush, but I don't doubt that he has probably been all over this.
Quote from: TheArtist on December 13, 2011, 01:11:09 PM
None of us are perfect and surely have some hypocrisy somewhere in what we believe and think. But these last couple of days listening to hypocrytical people angrily demonize others for being hypocrits, has definitely been an eye opener. I cant quite decide if its a comedy show or a tragedy. Tragic comedy?
How have you managed to avoid this at work for all this time? I have spent decades with those kind of people...dealing with that crap.
Yes to your comment about both sides. The left can be just as bad. They just aren't as effective, so not as big a threat.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
10 minutes to respond? You must have been otherwise occupied.
Yeah, one of my dogs decided Saturday that a can of Coke would fit really well on my laptop's keyboard. The laptop was not amused.
Using my HTPC and living room TV is not a terribly pleasant way to compute, so I've been scarce, seeing as how it's unpleasant enough just getting work done. But you know me, I can't resist seeing what everybody is up to. ;)
And on the topic, here's why Reid's statement isn't as off-the-mark as Gaspar claims: Despite all the talk about small business, the reality is that most people in this country are employed by gigantic corporations. The vast majority of firms (over 75%) don't employ anyone. Those ten-to-nineteen person businesses? There are (were in 2007) a hair over a million of them in the US, and they employed 7 million people, out of a total of 120 million. A drop in the bucket.
That's not to trivialize their contribution by any means. I think that a society with fewer mega-businesses and more small businesses is likely to have better outcomes as far as income distribution and class mobility. They are the people for whom single payer health coverage is most vital. Rush claims to support small business, but oddly enough, he's OK with the tax code favoring people higher up on the income ladder. He's OK with the tax code favoring capital gains over real work and real production. So too, seem to be most of the newly-elected Tea Partyists. Small business is a prop for the Republican party, nothing more.
I'm one.
Guido, you and the rest of the under-100 employee set employs a grand total of 20 million people, or about a fifth of all employees, despite being over 60% of all businesses with payroll. It's an important contribution, and it would be nice to grow it. However, that's not really where the jobs are, in the main.
I'd love to see capital gains (aside perhaps on one's primary residence) treated as normal income and otherwise fix the distribution of taxation. It's not right that you pay a higher percentage of your income in tax than CEOs making tens of millions or more a year, just as it wouldn't be right for someone making $20,000 a year to pay as high of a percentage as you do.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 13, 2011, 01:10:29 PM
Red, the demand for personal computers was existing. It simply was not constructed in the form of those particular "home" computers. The demand was in the form of hand held calculators, electric typewriters, micro-fiche, filing cabinets, compositing machines, adding machines, copiers etc. The personal computers did not create the demand, they were the result of it.
That's like saying the demand for automobiles existed because there were horses and buggies. Not entirely wrong but stretching a bit.
Quote
I also take issue with your characterization of Gates, et. al. being exceptions. In my readings and experience, they are not. Wealthy 1% 'ers simply are not the driving force behind job creation. Its the little guys who are most able to gauge and attempt to satisfy the market because they seldom need or have access to the same resources that a huge corporation uses. They have first hand experience with the market which the corporation has to buy. Many small employers disappear because the larger operations frankly, are more capable of exploiting their ideas.
I'll agree that a lot of really good ideas come from the little guy. Large corporations frequently stifle innovation. Jumping from an idea to mass production usually takes money.
Quote
"Demand without a business to supply it will go unsatisfied." This also is counter to our experience. Without the micro-chips that run business computers, the consumer would have continued using file cabinets, typewriters, micro-fiche, compositors, mimeographs and adding machines.
I see we are not communicating again. The next two sentences were intended to say that either a business exists or would be created: "The business to supply it may exist. If it doesn't, more often than not it will be created or financed by someone not living from paycheck to paycheck."
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 04:46:59 PM
Yeah, one of my dogs decided Saturday that a can of Coke would fit really well on my laptop's keyboard. The laptop was not amused.
Using my HTPC and living room TV is not a terribly pleasant way to compute, so I've been scarce, seeing as how it's unpleasant enough just getting work done. But you know me, I can't resist seeing what everybody is up to. ;)
I assume the can of Coke was open and dispersed its contents on the keyboard. :D
Laptop repairable?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 07:27:19 PM
I assume the can of Coke was open and dispersed its contents on the keyboard. :D
Laptop repairable?
Your assumption is correct.
So far, the laptop isn't responding to my ministrations, sadly. Right now it's in pieces. Somehow, it's a lot harder to get things back together than it is to get them apart, even when you have a manual to tell you what to do. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 07:32:07 PM
Somehow, it's a lot harder to get things back together than it is to get them apart, even when you have a manual to tell you what to do. ;)
Shoulda bought an automatic. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 07:15:36 PM
I'd love to see capital gains (aside perhaps on one's primary residence) treated as normal income and otherwise fix the distribution of taxation. It's not right that you pay a higher percentage of your income in tax than CEOs making tens of millions or more a year, just as it wouldn't be right for someone making $20,000 a year to pay as high of a percentage as you do.
I see you have a special interest. Capital gains are capital gains. If you are wealthy enough to own a home and make a profit when you sell, you are no different than someone investing in, say, the stock market. You need to pay the income tax.
I know you found the tax info based on AGI. Do you have something definitive based on gross income and how it gets to AGI. I am assuming you will look for something non-partisan like the Tax Foundation info you found that indicates that the top 1% average paying about 24.28%, the top 5% average 20.46% and the top 10% average 18.05% but notice that between the top 5% and top 10% only average 11.36% of their AGI. It only goes downhill from there.
Someday those nanobots will be in everything. Until then...
RA, the reason I would exempt capital gains from sale of one's primary residence is that there is a large social good that comes from having a highly mobile workforce. It allows people to move to where the jobs are without a major financial penalty. Cap the exemption or limit the exemption to the amount rolled into one's new residence or something if you're concerned about people getting an advantage in excess of that which is beneficial as public policy.
The Wikipedia article appears at first glance to be reasonably correct:
Quote
Gross income is reduced by certain items to arrive at adjusted gross income.[3] These include:
Expenses of carrying on a trade or business including most rental activities (other than as an employee)
Certain business expenses of teachers, reservists, performing artists, and fee-basis government officials,
Health savings account deductions,
Certain moving expenses,
One-half of self-employment tax,
Allowable contributions to certain retirement arrangements (SEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA, and qualified plans) and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs),
Penalties imposed by financial institutions and others on early withdrawal of savings,
Alimony paid (which the recipient must include in gross income),
College tuition, fees, and student loan interest (with limitations and exceptions),
Jury duty pay remitted to the juror's employer,
Domestic production activities deduction, and
Certain other items of limited applicability.
AGI is the appropriate measure. Using gross income would understate the effective tax rate of those with schedule C income. Where it all falls apart is that stock compensation gets treated as long term capital gains as long as the stock is held after exercise of the option. Even using the logic of the present rules, that's just wrong. At the very least, the spread between the strike price and market value at exercise should be taxed as wage income no matter when the stock is sold. That's why you find the top 0.1% paying less (as a percentage) than lower groups. I don't know how much of a difference it would really make, but it's pretty ridiculous that those at the top can shift wage income to capital gains so easily.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 08:33:33 PM
RA, the reason I would exempt capital gains from sale of one's primary residence is that there is a large social good that comes from having a highly mobile workforce. It allows people to move to where the jobs are without a major financial penalty. Cap the exemption or limit the exemption to the amount rolled into one's new residence or something if you're concerned about people getting an advantage in excess of that which is beneficial as public policy.
Keep in mind that I actually agree with the exemption for capital gains on a primary residence but....
I don't agree that it is necessary to exempt capital gains on a primary residence to have a highly mobile workforce. Being able to sell a home for what you paid for it is a plus in itself. The profit (gain) is what is taxed. Trying to channel the liberal that is not really in me, why shouldn't you share your good fortune (profit portion only) of selling a home at a profit?
Quote
The Wikipedia article appears at first glance to be reasonably correct:
AGI is the appropriate measure. Using gross income would understate the effective tax rate of those with schedule C income. Where it all falls apart is that stock compensation gets treated as long term capital gains as long as the stock is held after exercise of the option. Even using the logic of the present rules, that's just wrong. At the very least, the spread between the strike price and market value at exercise should be taxed as wage income no matter when the stock is sold. That's why you find the top 0.1% paying less (as a percentage) than lower groups. I don't know how much of a difference it would really make, but it's pretty ridiculous that those at the top can shift wage income to capital gains so easily.
We have an Employee Stock Purchase Program where I work. We use after tax dollars to purchase stock. We used to get a 15% discount from market price but in order to punish the rich, now even the rest of us only get a 5% discount. I can sell right away but pay ordinary income rates if I sell before 1 year. After one year, I get 15% capital gains rates. Since I have to buy stock with after tax dollars, I could go along with the top execs having to pay ordinary wage rates based on some value at the time the stock is issued. A discount, but no more than available to everyone (like me), would be OK. Then either short term or long term would apply on gains/losses based on that value. (That might be what you said but I'm not sure.)
Please see Table 8. The top 0.1% paid less from 2004 to 2008 than the top 1% but even at the top 5% level, the top 0.1% paid a higher average rate. Other years, including 2009, the top 0.1% paid the top average rate. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 I understand that average means that someone paid less but it also means someone paid more. I would like my discount returned to 15%.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 09:31:26 PM
Keep in mind that I actually agree with the exemption for capital gains on a primary residence but....
I don't agree that it is necessary to exempt capital gains on a primary residence to have a highly mobile workforce. Being able to sell a home for what you paid for it is a plus in itself. The profit (gain) is what is taxed. Trying to channel the liberal that is not really in me, why shouldn't you share your good fortune (profit portion only) of selling a home at a profit?
The main reason I'd not tax profit that was put into another house is the variance between markets. That 15% may be the difference between someone being able to sell a house in Oklahoma and having a reasonable mortgage in California and not. If it's cashed out, it should be taxed, IMO.
Quote
We have an Employee Stock Purchase Program where I work. We use after tax dollars to purchase stock. We used to get a 15% discount from market price but in order to punish the rich, now even the rest of us only get a 5% discount. I can sell right away but pay ordinary income rates if I sell before 1 year. After one year, I get 15% capital gains rates. Since I have to buy stock with after tax dollars, I could go along with the top execs having to pay ordinary wage rates based on some value at the time the stock is issued. A discount, but no more than available to everyone (like me), would be OK. Then either short term or long term would apply on gains/losses based on that value. (That might be what you said but I'm not sure.)
To clarify, I think whatever the value is at the time of exercise should be taxed as normal wages (possibly at the time of sale, but the paperwork would be complex on that). Any further appreciation should be taxed at the applicable capital gains rate as it is now, presuming a special capital gains rate is kept, which I'm not entirely sure is a great thing.
Quote
Please see Table 8. The top 0.1% paid less from 2004 to 2008 than the top 1% but even at the top 5% level, the top 0.1% paid a higher average rate. Other years, including 2009, the top 0.1% paid the top average rate. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 I understand that average means that someone paid less but it also means someone paid more. I would like my discount returned to 15%.
I would expect that the top 0.1% would pay a higher effective rate in a crappy economy, as more of their income is normally derived from capital gains. When investment income is low, their rates will naturally be higher. 2009 isn't a normal year in that respect. You'll note that the period of weirdness came after the Bush tax cuts. Also, that particular source only counts federal income tax, not payroll tax and state and local taxes. The source I have on that is getting outdated (I believe 2007 is the latest year). I'll see if I can dig up something more fresh.
Edited to add: Here's something from 2009 from the DC local government which lists, as best as they can calculate, the state/local tax burden for families of three residing in the largest cities of all 50 states, for incomes between $25,000 and $150,000:
http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/09STUDY.pdf
The interesting part, presuming the methodology ends up looking OK is this; I'm only pulling out Oklahoma:
$25,000: 10.9%
$50,000: 8.2%
$75,000: 8.2%
$100,000: 8.6%
$150,000: 7.8%
That seems somewhat off to me. I'd like to find a source that includes higher income levels, just for kicks.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 09:56:53 PM
The main reason I'd not tax profit that was put into another house is the variance between markets. That 15% may be the difference between someone being able to sell a house in Oklahoma and having a reasonable mortgage in California and not. If it's cashed out, it should be taxed, IMO.
I have no interest in supporting the cost of housing in California or any other place with crazy housing costs. Those people need to get their costs in order.
Quote
Also, that particular source only counts federal income tax, not payroll tax and state and local taxes.
I know you and I depart ways on this but it doesn't bother me that payroll taxes are a much higher percentage of people's income whose income is below the cutoff level. Social Security will be a significant portion, maybe all, of the retirement income for many lower income groups. Payroll tax is just a way of forcing them to pay for the ability to retire at all. Benefits are based on contributions, not your AGI. I do not see that as unfair at all. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet won't be getting any more Social Security benefits than Guido, except that when Guido is old enough there may not be enough money for anyone. Social Security retirement income can be taxed if you have enough other income. Means testing is already here. The levels are in the lower 5 figure range. Below an income level, SS retirement is not taxed.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 07:15:36 PM
Guido, you and the rest of the under-100 employee set employs a grand total of 20 million people, or about a fifth of all employees, despite being over 60% of all businesses with payroll. It's an important contribution, and it would be nice to grow it. However, that's not really where the jobs are, in the main.
I'd love to see capital gains (aside perhaps on one's primary residence) treated as normal income and otherwise fix the distribution of taxation. It's not right that you pay a higher percentage of your income in tax than CEOs making tens of millions or more a year, just as it wouldn't be right for someone making $20,000 a year to pay as high of a percentage as you do.
I cannot take advantage of any tax benefit as a result of those several people I employ. Nor do I care. The folks that work for me get to take advantage of my culinary school education in the free very high end lunches and a get Christmas bonus. I deeply appreciate those who come into my home and work. But please, tax me for my gratitude because that will only encourage me to do more to express my appreciation. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2011, 10:29:01 PM
I cannot take advantage of any tax benefit as a result of those several people I employ. Nor do I care. The folks that work for me get to take advantage of my culinary school education in the free very high end lunches and a get Christmas bonus. I deeply appreciate those who come into my home and work. But please, tax me for my gratitude because that will only encourage me to do more to express my appreciation. ::)
Very high end lunches? Christmas bonus! Slave labor? Making a mockery of your own gratitude?
You might not take advantage of any tax bennies, but you sure do take advantage of our time!
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 09:56:53 PM
Edited to add: Here's something from 2009 from the DC local government which lists, as best as they can calculate, the state/local tax burden for families of three residing in the largest cities of all 50 states, for incomes between $25,000 and $150,000:
http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/09STUDY.pdf
The interesting part, presuming the methodology ends up looking OK is this; I'm only pulling out Oklahoma:
$25,000: 10.9%
$50,000: 8.2%
$75,000: 8.2%
$100,000: 8.6%
$150,000: 7.8%
That seems somewhat off to me. I'd like to find a source that includes higher income levels, just for kicks.
Sales tax will do that when things like groceries are taxed. I have previously noted that when we lived in PA, groceries, clothing, and prescription drugs were not subject to sales tax which was 6% in 1971. I have not kept up with current policy. I could support a revenue neutral change in sales tax policy to exempt certain necessities. Necessities do not include a wide screen television.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 13, 2011, 10:33:01 PM
Very high end lunches? Christmas bonus! Slave labor? Making a mockery of your own gratitude?
You might not take advantage of any tax bennies, but you sure do take advantage of our time!
F you. I pay all my employees and contractors more than what they bid or ask for you sexstain as tax consequences are irrelevant. The unexpected thankfulness makes me feel good. As for you, as a damned inspired doosh water, get bent.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2011, 10:23:04 PM
I have no interest in supporting the cost of housing in California or any other place with crazy housing costs. Those people need to get their costs in order.
I know you and I depart ways on this but it doesn't bother me that payroll taxes are a much higher percentage of people's income whose income is below the cutoff level. Social Security will be a significant portion, maybe all, of the retirement income for many lower income groups. Payroll tax is just a way of forcing them to pay for the ability to retire at all. Benefits are based on contributions, not your AGI. I do not see that as unfair at all. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet won't be getting any more Social Security benefits than Guido, except that when Guido is old enough there may not be enough money for anyone. Social Security retirement income can be taxed if you have enough other income. Means testing is already here. The levels are in the lower 5 figure range. Below an income level, SS retirement is not taxed.
If we were still living in 1978 and the payroll tax actually funded Social Security and Medicare, rather than general government operations (or if Gore had been elected and gotten his "lock box"), I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your position on that. However, for the past 30 years, payroll tax has been used to provide budget room for income tax cuts. It is, at this point, just an income tax by a different name and only applied to wage income below a certain threshold.
That deal is precisely the reason why we have a supposed problem with Social Security and Medicare. Had we not spent the money we were supposedly funding SS and Medicare with, we'd have a nice sovereign wealth fund to pay all those retirement benefits with, and it could have been earning money in the market all these years. While the last 10 years of capital gains would have been wiped out in the housing crash, the previous 20 would have more than made up for it, relative to holding nonconvertible Treasury IOUs. Now that it's time for those who reaped the benefits of prior tax cuts to repay, they're all saying we're tapped out. (yes, lower incomes also got cuts, but they were much lower in both the rate change and the dollar amounts.
FWIW, Philadelphia is now more regressive than Oklahoma City. I don't know if they instituted a grocery tax or not.
Oh, I guess I'm an employer, too. I thought you were against counting household help as employees in answer to the "how many people have you put to work?" question, guido. I wouldn't mind a tax deduction for that money, but it wouldn't be terribly fair, not being a business expense. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2011, 10:40:28 PM
F you. I pay all my employees and contractors more than what they bid or ask for you sexstain as tax consequences are irrelevant. The unexpected thankfulness makes me feel good. As for you, as a damned inspired doosh water, get bent.
LOL! Sue me for intentional infliction of emotional distress. ROTFLMFAO!
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 13, 2011, 10:46:51 PM
LOL! Sue me for intentional infliction of emotional distress. ROTFLMFAO!
F off.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2011, 10:43:55 PM
If we were still living in 1978 and the payroll tax actually funded Social Security and Medicare, rather than general government operations (or if Gore had been elected and gotten his "lock box"), I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your position on that. However, for the past 30 years, payroll tax has been used to provide budget room for income tax cuts. It is, at this point, just an income tax by a different name and only applied to wage income below a certain threshold.
Those lower income payroll tax payers will still get benefits as a greater portion of their retirement than the upper income levels. I agree that SS income should not have been used for the general fund.
QuoteFWIW, Philadelphia is now more regressive than Oklahoma City. I don't know if they instituted a grocery tax or not.
Philadelphia had (I believe still has) a city income tax. I don't know how it is structured. I remember when my dad's office got moved from downtown Philadelphia to a maintenance facility in another county, he considered it a pay raise because he didn't have to pay the city tax anymore. We didn't live in Phila city limits. When his office got moved again to King of Prussia, he still didn't have to pay city income tax. Again, I don't know current conditions. That was 40 years ago. Family and friends have scattered so I haven't even visited in over 20 years.
Edit: found this
http://www.phila.gov/revenue/Tax_Types_and_Codes.html