Yay! I spent the last two weeks learning git, and Google kept pointing me to kernel.org for the documentation. Having the site actually up will be nice, although I've already learned everything possible about Git!
(Wow, I apparently forgot to post this yesterday, and it was hiding in one of my tabs.)
Okay, I'll reply to your trolling. The "right" wants to cut FEDERAL education spending because we're spending more per student than almost every other country in the world and not getting corresponding results. They want the individual states to take control, because the centralized approach is not working.
To the point, the decision was made in 1921 to encourage long-term investment by taxing income made from investment at a lower rate than other income. It had a 2-year minimum on the term of the investment. The minimum term was removed in 1986 which was sponsored by Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt.
However, it is still the apparent intention of Congress to encourage investment, and that's why the rate is lower.
The money is sitting in investments of course, but its not circulating into the hands of anyone but the top 10 percent.
Again, do you have any data to back up that statement?
Having been through college and obtaining a masters degree in applied mathematics, I can tell you its not an easy task at all. It requires dedication, intelligence, and hard work.
It may, but it doesn't make you employable. Work ethic and ability make you employable. Certain jobs require specialized knowledge, and those will require proof that you have that knowledge. The easiest way to do that is with a degree, but it's not the only way.
You wouldn't hire someone that can stick through something like that?
I wouldn't hire someone solely based on their degree. I see college graduates that are illiterate in their primary language, or can't perform basic arithmetic. When I interview candidates, they must prove their ability to do the job, regardless of their education. Likewise, someone who can do the job without the degree is also worth hiring.
Your anti-intellectualism is pretty much standard for most people that are undeserving rich assholes.
I'm middle-class and grew up lower-middle-class. And I'm self-taught and I didn't finish high school, but I read scientific articles for fun and am employed as a software engineer with enough job experience to count as an equivalent to a college degree. You're making the biased assumption that only college graduates can be intellectuals. I haven't said anything against intelligent or educated people. But I'm definitely an asshole.
Simply put, I am more educated and intelligent than most people, and I definitely work harder than most people.
And you want to keep the fruits of your labor, don't you? If you work hard enough to earn more, do you want to get less of it?
Why aren't I rich? Well, no-one is hiring for a fair wage, nor am I able to statistically make what I am worth after trying for the last year and applying to hundreds of jobs.
A "fair wage" must be fair to both the payer as well as the payee, and apparently your definition of "fair" only includes your own perspective.
You can also start your own business—there's no rule that you must work for someone else. (Although perhaps not with the specific degree you have. Some degrees are only useful to educators who teach the subject of their degree.)
I finally settled for one, but I can't even pay off student loans.
The job market is proving the worth of your degree. I know it sucks.
Why is it that a country wants to punish people for actually being educated?
They aren't going to reward people more than the value their education adds. The value of college education has dropped drastically while its cost has skyrocketed. The skyrocketing price is a result of Federal intervention, since people like you are willing to take out huge loans to pay for it without fear that the loan will need to be repaid in any realistic time period. This has led to a condition where the price is no longer in line with the value, since you're not looking at the cost of the education. When people spend their own money, they look for value. When they spend other people's money, not so much.
After all, its the educated people that even make most things in your life you take for granted possible.
How do you know which things I take for granted? <grin> That's really just untrue. Thomas Edison did not have a formal education. And while you can say that he stole many things from Tesla, Tesla (apparently) dropped out of university. Other examples of important inventors were educated either outside the United States or before 1950. Sure, there are plenty of US-educated people who do important things, but they are far more rare than US college graduates. An education is not the sole indicator of a person's ability to produce.
...loaning money to others is one reason we are in this mess, with everyone including government owing everything to the banks and/or the fed.
The loaning of the money isn't the cause of the issue. People borrowing more than they can repay is definitely an issue. Banks used to care because they would actually be on the hook for bad loans. Since the Fed and the Federal government started paying banks that made or bought bad loans, the banks (and bank investors) lost their incentive to care. If they actually had a risk, they would have made different decisions. And all of the banks that did the right thing and didn't buy bad securities or make bad mortgages got nothing from the Fed! Why in the future would any bank do the right thing in the future? Now it's less profitable!
And make no mistake: the Fed and the Federal government want people and companies to be on their hook. Again, it comes down to power.
The $1000 that you loan was left over after you paid your income taxes. That's why it's not taxed when it's returned--it's already been taxed. $1000 available to invest represents at least $1300 in income, less roughly 28% income tax.
You are having a logic failure. Correlation does not equal causation. The US economy was a powerhouse and people moved to the US in droves during the 19th century, when there was no income tax at all. Even if it were true that the tax cuts over the recent years were all for the wealthy, that doesn't mean there should be nothing wrong with the economy.
The current flailing economy is a product of:
The wealthy are sitting on the largest sums of money for a century, and they aren't doing shit for anyone else, such as giving them a job or investing in start ups.
Can you cite an example, please? Only the most extreme idiot would "sit on" money, since the value of the US dollar decreases with time.
If a wealthy person didn't finish college and that's their excuse for not knowing algebra, then they are simply a moron considering you learn it in high school, contradicting your "The wealthiest 10 percent are the smartest" theory.
I'm not even sure how to parse that. But perhaps I should state the underlying point I was making, which is that an education is not needed to be rich. Many rich people dropped out of school altogether, during or before college. And some of the most thoroughly educated people are not rich. The reason is that education does not make a person rich--being industrious, gutsy, and smart do.
there are millions of workers that work twice as hard as any CEO since their jobs are long and demanding, like construction.
People are paid based on value of their product, not based on how hard they work to make it. A good CEO can make the company billions in profit, and a good construction worker can't. They're getting a percentage of the eventual return on investment that's made in their work. And if they want to go into business for themselves, instead of get paid to perform their duty, they can partake directly in that return on investment (and inversely, take the loss if the investment turns out to be a bad one).
If there weren't inheritance and disproportionate privileged for the children of wealthy parents I would agree with your "upper 10 percent are the hardest working". As it is you can inherit a bunch of money and live the rest of your life making investments...
As I've discussed here and elsewhere, investing money is a good thing.
...or you can work for your daddies company making way more than you are worth...
Your rant makes me think that you have history with a specific person. I'm not sure what you expect to gain from this extreme minority of people whose daddies are bad parents and allow them to stay worthless.
...or you can pay off an ivy league school and get a degree that will make you tons of money.
What good is that when...
There is a huge swath of young educated people that can't make shit wages...
Well yeah, because as I mentioned, an education doesn't necessarily give someone value as an employee. Considering that getting a degree takes a shitload of money and nothing more, I sure as hell am not looking to hire someone with a degree unless they can demonstrate that they can do the job well. And enough of them spend that time partying, exploring their sexuality, and holding socialist rallies that people aren't going to hire them simply because they have proof that their grades were good enough to graduate.
...because of wealthy people hoarding their money and refusing to use it for business.
What?! If they're refusing to use it for business, then where is the money?! They build big swimming pools and fill them with cash?
As I've mentioned with regard to investment, keeping money in the bank is also investment: the bank loans that money to others.
Trickle down doesnt work, its never worked because wealthy people don't like giving up their money for any reason. Its easier to simply all agree to pay people shit wages, and make them work twice as hard while systematically removing the workers rights to unionize to prevent such abuse.
The wealthy get that way by taking risks, hiring people and paying them for their production. The battle between unions and employers was originally beneficial to workers, but if the balance of power tips too far in the other direction, it becomes impossible to compete with other countries where they can pay their employees less. And that's another reason for our current economy.
The wealthy benefit way more from this society than the average person does, and as such they should pay for it.
This society benefits way more from the wealthy than it does from the average person, and the wealthy are already paying for it.
"This Buffet stuff" includes the interpretation and use by the Obama speechwriters. But in short, I think that he's being intentionally misleading. Call it lying if you wish.
He was already taxed on the money he's invested, and the money he's getting as dividends has already been taxed as corporate profit before it's given to him as dividend.
Second, Buffet's investment firm owes quite a bit in back-taxes. Which harms his credibility--he seems to want everyone except himself to pay more taxes.
Third, he's free to pay as much as he wants in taxes. He can mail a check any time he chooses. He probably pays the salary of more than one accountant to keep his taxes as low as possible. What if he sent that money to the Feds instead?
Buffet has his own interests in mind. If you were extremely rich and invested in large companies, why would you want everyone's taxes increased?
...for nothing more than taking the risk of lending the money.
You say that like it's a small thing to lend your money and take the risk that you won't get it back. Most investors are not extremely rich, most stocks are owned by middle-class people.
You also aren't considering the fact that to get that $1000 to invest, they had to earn at least $1,300 and pay $300 in taxes initially. And after they loaned the $1000, it was spent, and it was taxed again--the government already took a cut multiple times before the investor gets it back. Getting a 10% return on investment, as in your example, is extremely high. Investments are made simply to beat inflation (2% per year is about minimum to break even), and the higher the possible return on an investment, the higher the risk that the entire sum loaned will not be returned.
Businesses borrow to expand and hire people, or to market so that they can expand and increase their income. It's no small thing--investment is extremely important to our economy. That's why taxes are slightly lower on investment.
So additional income from money you invest is not income?
It is income, and because investment is something that we've decided we want to encourage, the tax on income from investment is lower than other income.
Do you seriously think that 10 percent of the population is so much smarter and harder working than the other 90?
Yes. Without any doubt.
I have a millionaire boss who I had to do basic algebra for...
Algebra has a specific use, and it's not required for most jobs. Many, if not most, self-made rich people did not finish college and probably don't know algebra--it's not needed unless they choose a specific career path.
Both parties increase spending, with republicans just as bad as democrats
To some degree that's true. In my above scenario, Group A was actually Constitutionalist conservatives, not Republicans. Many current (outgoing) Republicans are, above all, into building power for themselves and the Federal government. These are being slowly replaced when real conservatives run for office, and I expect that the Republican party will either change substantially or there will be a new party before long. On the other hand, all liberals are interested in increased spending and power, because that's the easiest (if not the only) way to implement their social agenda.
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
Secondly, let's consider a scenario: Group A wants independent states and a small Federal government, so they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. Group B wants to increase Federal government size and power by increasing spending and eventually taxes.
What's the compromise? No increase in spending? Well, the compromise in the US has ALWAYS been an increase in spending, there's never been any actual cut in spending.
The law says that the Federal budget will always increase each year over the previous ("baseline budgeting"), so if neither group takes any action, Group B's desires are met. (Any "cuts" they talk about are actually reductions in future spending from the baseline, never reductions from the current year's budget.)
So that's why Group B wants to "compromise", because it makes them look more reasonable without risking anything--their goals are being met if they get none of their evident demands.
The Federal government has the right to regulate commerce.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" does not mean "regulate all commerce" and your interpretation is in stark contrast with the stated intent of the framers of the Constitution. They designed the federal government to be federal:
having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs, and of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation
if this really is that obviously unconstitutional they shouldn't have been pushing for it in the past.
Truer words are rarely spoken. Republicans are sometimes constitutionalists, but like Democrats are almost always advocates for more Federal power.
Ack, I hate to reply twice, but I also want to mention that the direct income tax is also the reason that illegal immigration is such a problem--a large chunk of the population does not pay taxes. Also, those whose business is illegal don't pay taxes because they hide their income. Both of these are handled by a sales tax.
As NeutronCowboy pointed out, your entire argument ignores the fact that in all proposals for a national sales tax, food and housing (for example) are exempted from tax.
Saving money in the bank or investing it helps the economy as much as spending it, because the money is loaned and spent and continues to move through the economy. The only savings that doesn't help the economy is burying coinage in the backyard, and that is punished by inflation. As a negative example, the current Federal Reserve policy of extremely low interest rates have damaged the economy more than anything else by making it cheaper for the banks to hoard money than to lend it out, which is why it's so difficult to get a bank loan at this time.
Finally, regardless of how much money is saved to dodge the sales tax, the money will eventually be spent, and will be taxed at that time (unless, of course, it's spent on food or other necessities).
1. "Regressive" is not "unfair".
2. The entire argument made is ignores the fact that in all proposals for a national sales tax, food and housing (for example) are exempted from tax.
3. Someone saving their money in the bank or investing it is doing the economy a service, and that should be encouraged. I've mentioned the reason for this previously.
4. Finally, if they spend all their life investing 50% of their money instead of spending it, when they retire and begin spending that money, it will be taxed as well. If they only live off the interest, that is also taxed.
You're speaking of a national sales tax that doesn't exist. How can a trust be tax-exempt from it when the law hasn't been written?
Secondly, "not buying anything" means that the money will be invested or saved and will generate revenue when it is loaned to someone who buys something with it. This is a good thing. The current income tax structure is designed to encourage savings and investment, which is why capital gains tax is lower than income tax.
You asked for an economist who claims that, "The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less." The Laffer curve claims EXACTLY that: the higher the tax rate, the lower the revenue.
No directory.
