LOL...how about surprising me with an intelligent post? If you have some evidence, now is the time to show it.
The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
comical--how original--was that your best thought? (shakes head)--carry on with your pathetic nonsense.
All I asked of you was a semi intelligent post every once in a while.
well then, i would then suggest evolving your mentality--All I asked of you was a semi intelligent post every once in a while.
shrugs)--agian carry on.
LOL...would you nowwell then, i would then suggest evolving your mentality--
I suggest you stop trolling.
so me pointing out your obvious, ignorance, lack of any reality nonsense, is trolling--yes-yes-- i guess i can see how you would see it that way-- i mean, especially if i was secluded and isolated from actaul reality-- but then again, here you are saying such thingsLOL...would you now
I suggest you stop trolling.
--once again-- (shakes head)--carry on with your pathetic nonsense.
so me pointing out your obvious, ignorance, lack of any reality nonsense, is trolling--yes-yes-- i guess i can see how you would see it that way-- i mean, especially if i was secluded and isolated from actaul reality-- but then again, here you are saying such things
LOL...well now just when did you point out any "obvious, ignorance" on my part? You aren't being honest, at least you are true to form. You have been repeatedly challenged to make your case and you haven't. What you have done is continue your trolling. As I have repeatedly challenged you to do, if you have some evidence to show that Mother Russia isn't more corrupt than Western states, now is the time to show it.
says the one whom obviously cannot comprehend what i have previously stated.LOL...well now just when did you point out any "obvious, ignorance" on my part? You aren't being honest, at least you are true to form. You have been repeatedly challenged to make your case and you haven't. What you have done is continue your trolling. As I have repeatedly challenged you to do, if you have some evidence to show that Mother Russia isn't more corrupt than Western states, now is the time to show it.
(shrugs)--carry on.
LOL...yes by all means run away.says the one whom obviously cannot comprehend what i have previously stated.
Again, if you can make a reasoned case, make it.
again, " says the one whom obviously cannot comprehend what i have previously stated.LOL...yes by all means run away.
(shrugs)--carry on. "
LOL...yes run away or make your case.again, " says the one whom obviously cannot comprehend what i have previously stated.
MY GOD-- are you seriously this pathetic?LOL...yes run away or make your case.
Make your case.
If you think the West is as corrupt as Mother Russia, make your case. And if this is so "pathetic" why area you doing it? 
It's not free.
It can appear to be free, for a time, and then you can watch as your grandkids give up any ideas of having families of their own because they're repaying the bonds sold 30 years ago that paid for University. Not to mention the millions of lowly skilled employees with low IQs whom are unable to attend higher education. I suppose they do get the benefit of having a robotics engineer replace their menial labor with automation.
Ultimately the political class will look towards population replacement as a means of making up the tax bases needed to repay all the free. See Germany as a good example of this. The inflection point has probably already passed.
If education is truly valuable, then pay for it. Some of the reasons why education is so expensive is because government subsidizes loans that allow Universities to sell degrees in worthlessness and rent-seeking through regulatory capture.
That said, IMO American Universities were (maybe still are) some if the best experiences a young adult could hope for. Yes, European Universities offer access to information - so does the Internet. What American Universities offer is a life experience. At least for some. And those some who attend should be given scholarships, take up offers from employers who will pay for the training and/or take personal loans. They should not stick others with their bills. If they're serious, they'll pick a degree with value and repay their loans (if needed).
Soon the Internet and free market education will eliminate the distinction between higher and advanced education. People will take up courses and degrees purely because they want or need the training or knowledge.
Your fantasy world is getting stranger by the day. And my prediction that we were going to be quietly shifting the focus from the wealthy in general to the superrich in particular, as even your ability to stay in the bubble came under too much strain, is fulfilled.schmelzer said:
In a discussion of income tax rates, we are now supposed to focus on the class that gets the lowest percentage of its income - down to zero, in many cases - from categories subject to that tax - wages, tips, compensation. The superrich get their income from capital gains, largely. But what the hey - you seem to think that's an example of hiding their income.
So, keep it simple: Large corporations remain mostly unbought by any single person, and the superrich largely fail to be the sole owners of any corporations, let alone collections of them. So what you describe has not been happening. Part of the reason for that is the superrich in their investments are not children, buying toys - they invest money to make money or protect money, and one makes and protects more money in the long haul by diversifying one's risk and leveraging off of other people's conjoined investments.
So it's my style of discussion that prevents you from explaining yourself without displaying your ignorance. I was wondering.schmelzer said:
Because you do explain yourself. You frequently post reasons for your beliefs - as you did above, "explaining" why you believe the difference between corporate and personal income is trivial when discussing income tax rates. It's because the rich guy uses the corporation's money to buy what he would buy for himself, anyway, so it's just like the money was his. I didn't make that up to defame you - you posted that on purpose.
You have doubts because you lack information. What happens in reality is written down in the account books of the corporations and the tax returns of the rich. It is known, and the IRS can examine it at any time.schmelzer said:
Oh, dude - rich people own their houses, their driveways, their cars. And they pay for the college educations of their children. They record these things as tax deductions, often, which is better for them than having to record them as compensation - as they would under your hypothetical setup.schmelzer said:
Yes, I'm sure. I have acquired information in this matter, and this aids me in making these assessments. You have not acquired information, and so you are handicapped in making these assessments (you even posted Clinton as an advocate of higher income tax rates, for example).schmelzer said:
Would you like to see how it works? A good intro would be an investigation into the career of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Google is your friend. Or if you would like to catch up on what I'm talking about, research the influence money given to Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota, and compare it with the influence money given to Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota. Same State, same basic time period, same office, same issues: Wellstone was unusual in that he openly advocated for progressively higher income and capital gains tax rates, Coleman was more normal in that he called for rate and tax cuts of various kinds, and both of them ran and served before the current anonymity of the PACs and other Citizen's United innovations. It's not easy to find such a direct and easy comparison of exactly the matter at hand - you're welcome.
Valuable to whom? The person receiving it is already paying in labor and opportunity cost, and bearing the burden of uncertainty. The large number of people who benefit from the education of any specific person are unknown in advance, and cannot be billed. So if you give up on an actual market and assess the full financial cost to the student on top of the other costs, you will end up distorting every market involved, and crippling your economy as well as your educational institutions.michael said:
Last edited:
Valuable to the person paying for it. Which is why they pay for it. For example, I have a coffee cup here, in my hand, that I paid for. This means it had a value to me. How do we know? Because I paid for it.
Everything has a burden of uncertainty. Maybe you'll be hit by a meteor today?
Our Universities, particularly the private ones, are some of the best in the world. People pay a high price to attend because there are limited places and a lot of competition. This is called the 'Real World', which has this thing called 'Limited Stuff'. But, there's plenty of Universities in the USA, and most Americans can find one they can attend that isn't overly expensive. The top achieving students, are give scholarships and even head-hunted by top Universities. The people who pay for some crap education - get a crap education. If they're promised something (like a job), good, get it writing.
Not to mention, most information can now be found for free on the Internet. Almost anything. This leaves what role exactly for Universities? Well, they can run labs. Face time is worth something. Connections and networking. And then there's the life-experience. I can safely say, in my experience, I've never seen the American experience replicated anywhere else on Earth. The community support is also missing in most socialistic countries relative to the USA. Many of our Universities could offer "tuition free" education on this alone.
Many socialistic countries offer cheap University, that's crap relative to an American University. Crap. Sometimes they cut off a year (turn a 4 year bachelors degree into 3 years or even 2 years if you can imagine that, to save money). Those degrees don't count as the equivalent degree in the USA. But, hey, that's okay, they're free or very cheap and thanks to the magic of regulatory-capture, those degrees still offer one item of value: legal rent-seeker status. But what happens (always happens) is over time the price goes up, but the quality stays shit.
America is exceptional in this regards. In a way, I am positive, you do not appreciate.
Maybe a few monocultureal countries have decent 'free' University (like Germany). And guess what? Most Americans would never attend those Universities, because they'd never be allowed to. If they did attend, they'd quickly fail out.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
You want to tell me that in the US the income from capital gains is not even part of the sum which is progressively taxed? Else, this distinction would be irrelevant in this discussion. By the way, my point was not about the taxation of capital gains.
They have good reasons for this. Because if their aim is power, they obtain, in this way, power over much more than what they own. But this is a different question. As I have explained now many times, the other owners will in no way object if the profit of the company is used for investments like buying other firms.
Yes, such a style of discussion of one participant has bad consequences for the whole discussion. Much beyond the general tendency that the other participants become more aggressive and confrontative too. There exists a number of things one could mention without any problem in any scientific discussion but would not mention in such a confrontative discussion. So one can learn less in a confrontative discussion.
I have lack of information about the thousands of nice methods of reducing taxes hidden in the law books. This is information available to the lawyers of the rich. And it is very very different in different countries. Giving the superrich, who have firms in different countries, additional possibilities for tax economy. So, what I present here are some general ideas which may work in one legislation and be completely stupid in another one. The lawyers will tell you which is the optimal one in your legislation. And in which country the legislation is optimal for what you want to do.
Fine, if the lawyer says this is cheaper, even better.
Fine. I have emphasized the part which contains no information at all, only confrontation. The part which no scientist would write, simply out of politeness.
Yes. Capital gains are not progressively taxed in the US.schmelzer said:
That is something you would know if you actually knew anything about Clinton's tax proposals, for example; and that is something you needed to know before you used her as an example of somebody supposedly arguing for increased and more progressive income tax rates, (from the Left, you said!) while being bribed by the same wealthy people who are bribing - say - Ted Cruz. So why didn't you realize you were completely ignorant about all this stuff at the center of your posting, above?
It's one thing not to know who is bribing the politicians arguing for increased and increasingly progressive income tax rates in the US, compared to those bribing the politicians arguing for lower and less progressive income tax rates. I certainly don't know who's doing such bribing in, say, Germany. It's quite another to not realize that you don't know this - and then assume you can make entire arguments based on suppositions made in such ignorance.
How would you know? My point was, your argument was, and so forth.schmelzer said:
You also lack information about the reality of rich people's lives, and the operations of the income tax (and capital gains tax) in the US, and the methods of economic analysis used by professionals, and the effects of government taxation on distribution of income, and the role of investment in the distribution of wealth, and the management structures of ordinary joint stock corporations, and so forth.schmelzer said:
So - pay attention now - you were wrong. That entire line of posting about rich people in the US hiding 90% of their income and wealth from the tax man whenever they wanted to, and nobody able to even audit their books or track their wealth, and some corporation they own replacing their income with its own money, was in error. You are wrong about that.schmelzer said:
And that is directly relevant to this thread, as the future of the US economy depends in large part on whether the growing income and wealth inequality in the US can be curbed, and then reduced, the primary means of such efforts being taxation.
It contains a specific piece of information well worth your attention. Meanwhile, nothing you have posted here contains information, or lacks "confrontation", as you call it.schmelzer said:
actually non germans are allowed to enter there university system. they also don't pay tuition. and surprise surprise they don't fail out.