Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[Zefelius]

interesting post. BTW, i don't disagree that fear is important in the way you describe it. of course, it is important for alerting us. i just don't think we should instill fear in people in order to raise or educate them.

Do you disagree with the type of fear discussed above or any fear in general? Above, for example, I mentioned that early military training could be one type of way to instill discipline in kids. Of course, there could be other types.

Another type would simply be the power of failing students when they don't perform at an acceptable level. When I taught my online classes this summer, I noticed something interesting: I couldn't always tell the difference between foreign students and American born students in terms of their writing. When I teach a class in a physical setting, I can detect right away if a foreign student is having difficulties reading and writing at an abstract level of English, and naturally enough I'll be lenient on them as a I grade them because I know they're dealing with a second language. To me that's fair. But many of our American born students write as if they are foreigners. In my online class, I couldn't decide in many cases if I should be lenient or not because there was no certain proof which kids were which!!

Anyway, I think when American born students write so badly, and show so little effort in reading their texts, that I can't even tell for sure if they're foreign or not in an online class, I think it's exactly these students who should be failing. I've had students complain when I give them C's or D's and they've only completed half of their assignments, when in truth they should be failing at 50%! So if we were allowed to fail more of our students, and they knew that their future plans were in the balance, my guess is that they would work much, much harder and actually earn their A's and B's. But in many American colleges if faculty give out too many C's or below, they could lose their jobs. I would much rather instill fear into our students, in one way or another, to motivate them to stop being so apathetic, lazy, incredibly dumb, nearly illiterate, spoiled, and distracted.

But as I know I can't change the system, I tell my students on the first day of classes that I have no hope of reaching out to them, and if they want to do well in life they shouldn't trust the education system or the grades they receive, but instead they should take it into their own hands if they want to make something of themselves or not. I usually get a good laugh out of this because they already know it's true.

[ScottieX]

yeah but I was talking about the impact on the surviving person. if he killed the other guy in an impersonal way in a way that is better. In the same way that tellng someone to go to war is a little different (in terms of harm to you) from going to your enemy and sawing his head off.

would you rather meet in the street the champion pit fighting dog all by itself or the dogs owner (by himself)?

you sort of make my point here

one guy said that iraqi children were always running around their tanks blaring for water while the US soldiers weren't allowed to give them anything, etc. and this is from a western perspective.

Ie that the bad example you have, is somthing that could be much worse.

yes some iraqis would have seen peopel die but we are comparing with things like hunter gatherer mass rape/genocides which wouldnt have been much fun either.

but in iraq there are still numerous stillbirths from hussein's chemical weapons and the aftermath of the atomic bombs in japan are still very topical.

but, it is still, i think, more normal physical assults with shrapnel and bullets causing most of the deaths in the world, and most of the suffering.

[Zefelius]

I don't think you guys will agree with this kind of method, but yesterday I was thinking that one way to motivate kids and parents would be to conduct various tests--on intelligence, psychological attributes, and physical capabilities--on our populations to ensure that the weakest were excluded from society. These tests could be administered once or more than once, perhaps at ages 15 and 30. The bottom 5 or 10% could be flown to an island in the middle of one of the oceans where they would fight amongst themselves for survival. I don't think most of society would favor this because of various ethical principles and values, but it would certainly motivate our populations to work harder. Anyone caught cheating, of course, would be sent to the island immediately.

[ScottieX]

I don't think you guys will agree with this kind of method, but yesterday I was thinking that one way to motivate kids and parents would be to conduct various tests--on intelligence, psychological attributes, and physical capabilities--on our populations to ensure that the weakest were excluded from society. These tests could be administered once or more than once, perhaps at ages 15 and 30. The bottom 5 or 10% could be flown to an island in the middle of one of the oceans where they would fight amongst themselves for survival. I don't think most of society would favor this because of various ethical principles and values, but it would certainly motivate our populations to work harder. Anyone caught cheating, of course, would be sent to the island immediately.

hmm i think the key logical problem here is what are you planning on using hte intelligence/work ethic to achieve? trying to make a better society where people care more for eachother? hehe clearly not.

from a genetic perspective -why not just encourage sperm banks? from a hard work perspective why not just tweak the normal incentives - you could have big scholorships available for doing well on tests. maybe fines for doing badly?

save the island for the sociopaths.

[Zefelius]

hmm i think the key logical problem here is what are you planning on using hte intelligence/work ethic to achieve? trying to make a better society where people care more for eachother? hehe clearly not.

from a genetic perspective -why not just encourage sperm banks? from a hard work perspective why not just tweak the normal incentives - you could have big scholorships available for doing well on tests. maybe fines for doing badly?

save the island for the sociopaths.

Did I fail to mention that if you disagree with my plan you go straight to the island!?!?

[ScottieX]

Did I fail to mention that if you disagree with my plan you go straight to the island!?!?

um err.. ok yeah its a great idea!!!

[Zso_Zso]

About the tax rates of the wealthiest -- from one of the wealthiest in America (Warren Buffett):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...ml?_r=4&src=tp

"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income"

"The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. "

"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain."

Finally:
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. "

[ScottieX]

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. "

I'm surprised he pays even 17.4%... the richest person i knew personaly payed closer to 0%.

[ShowtekGER]

About the tax rates of the wealthiest -- from one of the wealthiest in America (Warren Buffett):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...ml?_r=4&src=tp

"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income"

"The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. "

"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain."

Finally:
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. "

the strange thing is that when you google this the first three sites or so state, while supporting this with statistics, that the rich pay a lot more taxes as a percentage of their income than the other classes in the US.

because of confusing crap like this i sometimes find it hard to take a up a stance on many matters while basing it on accurate knowledge instead of beliefs of my liking. generally, i want to believe that the tax system in the US is particularly unfair and if i want to find evidence supporting my belief, i'll find it. but if i'm looking for evidence supporting the contrary, i find it too. this goes for far too many issues.

[ScottieX]

what sites did you find? I'm interested to see how their statistics work...

Maybe it is things like
1) if you include benefits you get back as deductions from the tax you pay (valid?)
2)you assume that they pay the tax rate they theoretically should pay as opposed to flushing their income via companies and trusts (invalid)
3) if you dont count their VAT (invalid)
4) if you dont count their capital gains as income (invalid?)

or a host of other such things.

[Zso_Zso]

I'm surprised he pays even 17.4%... the richest person i knew personaly payed closer to 0%.

Notice that he said "17.4 percent of my taxable income". What he doesn't say is how much was his NOT taxable income -- probably a lot more than the taxable part, because that's what these guys are good at: finding and exploiting financial loopholes. So most of his income is not taxable I bet.

[ScottieX]

maybe this explains it
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...-tax-argument/
the question being is it reasonable to ad the two taxes (corporate and individual) together to get a total tax rate. the logic being that money the company spends on salaries is 'tax deductible" while his income is not so in theory the company can give the tax mans share to the employee and give them a higher wage for it. The assumption here being that BH doesnt have its own tax minimization strategies

frm another site
"Giant cash flows come in the door but a relative trickle makes it to the bottom line because Berkshire's insurance operations provide copious means of discretionary income recognition and tax shelter."
http://advisors4advisors.com/industr...ocrite-or-what

here is somthing on using a form of insurance to avoid tax
http://dir.rbcinvestments.com/insura...exempt.en.html

[Zefelius]

Notice that he said "17.4 percent of my taxable income". What he doesn't say is how much was his NOT taxable income -- probably a lot more than the taxable part, because that's what these guys are good at: finding and exploiting financial loopholes. So most of his income is not taxable I bet.

Interesting how the super rich who make money off of money pay 15% in taxes on what is called "carried interest." People who actually work in the work force pay more while those who are good at gambling with money pay less because they're not techinically working.

And to show how dumb people are in America, partly due to how we don't value true education (only the degree and automatic A's and B's), here is a very stupid rebuttal to Warren Buffet in the Terrain Tribune:

"Unfortunately, facts are not only stubborn, they are different. In his editorial, Buffet notes that incomes of the top 400 taxpayers (many of them his friends) had grown from $16.9 billion in 1992 to $90.9 billion in 2008, but that their actual tax rate over that period had declined. What was missing, of course, was the fact that in 1992 those taxpayers’ income tax liabilities totalled $5 billion, but in 2008 it had almost quadrupled, to $19.5 billion. So while effective tax rates were going down on his rich friends, they wound up paying four times as much to the government."

This writer actually argues against himself by saying the rich pay 4x more now than in the 1990s even while admitting in his second sentence that they make about 6x more in income. He acts as though paying 4x more is in itself proof that the rich pay more in taxes, when in fact the percentage of income taxed has been reduced. In America, and of course the rest of the world, people don't think about what they're saying.

[Zefelius]

maybe this explains it
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...-tax-argument/
the question being is it reasonable to ad the two taxes (corporate and individual) together to get a total tax rate.

Good point Scottie. It'll be interesting to hear if Buffett has a response to some of his critics...

[ScottieX]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...g-franc?page=2

do you guys really pay 2.6% and 8% in tax? Im finding that REALLY hard to believe...

[ShowtekGER]

what sites did you find? I'm interested to see how their statistics work...

Maybe it is things like
1) if you include benefits you get back as deductions from the tax you pay (valid?)
2)you assume that they pay the tax rate they theoretically should pay as opposed to flushing their income via companies and trusts (invalid)
3) if you dont count their VAT (invalid)
4) if you dont count their capital gains as income (invalid?)

or a host of other such things.

i found these for example:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html (figure 6)
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3652

most articles say the same. the second one suggests that the the top 1% have a slight advantage, though. there are more articles. i don't know what to make of this. i don't think that all of them apply statistics wrongly or ignore significant aspects.

[elthrasher]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...g-franc?page=2

do you guys really pay 2.6% and 8% in tax? Im finding that REALLY hard to believe...

Uh no. I have no clue how the Heritage Foundation is coming up with those numbers but they have had no compunctions about outright lies in the past so it's safe to assume that's where they're getting them now. My tax bracket is 25% but I pay more than that with Social Security and Medicare taxes plus state and local taxes.

[Zso_Zso]

The 2.6% figure seemed totally unbelievable indeed.
We have a complicated system up here in the North, where you pay different percentages for different part of your income, i.e. for the first ~40K of your earning you pay the lowest rate (20% total for federal + provincial together), then you pay higher percentage for each portion that reaches into higher brackets, maxing out at 40% for over 130K per year, more details for those interested here:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

[ScottieX]

Re this link http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3652


If i look for the statistics on the wealth share for richest 10% in usa I get about 70+% that sounds possible to me. In NZ its 10% own about 52% of wealth. Of course at 70% you are well in the green.

now Im talking wealth not income -> but if we then start to ask ourselves why the top 10% only make 35% of the income on 70+% of the wealth we might start asking questions about tax avoidance?
Or we might wonder if the rich are highly inefficient utilizers of capital (that would be the opposite of what I usually assume).

[elthrasher]

Or we might wonder if the rich are highly inefficient utilizers of capital (that would be the opposite of what I usually assume).

Of course they are. Money lying around in bank accounts doesn't stimulate the economy.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=331497

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=331497

Back in time just to show us all what a wingnut you are or what?

[Pedal2Metal]

Back in time just to show us all what a wingnut you are or what?

I recommend contacting the author if you have a cogent response you would like to discuss with him. This probably wouldn't qualify.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-taxes/243651/

I can't seem to read the entire article before my IE locks up but it looks decent.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

Of course they are. Money lying around in bank accounts doesn't stimulate the economy.

I wouldn't want to go down the road of talking about short term stimulus of the economy via exta spending... I think that is a mistake. My point is that spending aside they dont seem to be getting the ROI from mixing their capital with labour.

Maybe the graph has very high return for the first section of income then very low buit slowly increasing ROI as you get richer - if that very jerrymandered model isnt the case then winning the moral "the rich pay their fair share" argument seems to imply completely surrendering the "lowering tax rates on the rich helps everyone" argument because it might, long term, put more wealth in the hands of those using it inefficiently.....

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...you-do/243608/

Here's David full list of postings (Megan's can be found on the Atlantic website as well).

http://www.theatlantic.com/daniel-indiviglio

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=331497

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

what massive fail.

apart from the total lack of a basis for such claims, i'm getting annoyed with the style of arguing of the american conservative right in general which is often no more than an emotional rant appealing to irrational feelings instead of critical reason while consisting of somewhat premature ad hominem arguments. your article is a good example.

☺☺☺☺, america. i really like you and all but if you vote sarah palin, rick perry, or some other douche with the political mindset of a 12-year-old next year, you're going to end up in 4 or 8 years of the dark ages, if you're not there already.

[ScottieX]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=331497

I dont think he is correct, unless it happens that the US takes a big leap in the racist direction and any black president becomes the worst president. (which i think is possible). Otherwise he will probably be percieved as a good president in schools and amongst those not likely to die in the next 20-30 years and anyone who was educated overseas. The latter probably matterng more as US's power contines to wain.

Bush on the other hand wil be lucky to avoid being considered to be satan.

The facts of the matter that might be in dispute dont even matter enough to change that I believe.

[ScottieX]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...you-do/243608/
Here's David full list of postings (Megan's can be found on the Atlantic website as well).
http://www.theatlantic.com/daniel-indiviglio

"If you obtain that dividend, should it be taxed? Well, it already was -- at 35%. For this reason, it makes sense to tax it at 0%. "

this seems to be the main issue. maybe higher capital taxes will cause cmpanies to demand higer returns and lower salaries.. maybe. I suppose some companies make gains in ways that are not fully taxible like maybe capital gans on property or other assets... or profits in other countries?

"Why should you be penalized for investing that money instead of spending it?"
good point BUT this is not the dichotomy - you cant just not tax - you have to balance the bidget so the trade is "why should you be penalized for investing when you could be penalized for working"
Not quite so convincing put that way?

ofcourse you could also put on a massive VAT tax on consumption...

[Zefelius]

what massive fail.

apart from the total lack of a basis for such claims, i'm getting annoyed with the style of arguing of the american conservative right in general which is often no more than an emotional rant appealing to irrational feelings instead of critical reason while consisting of somewhat premature ad hominem arguments. your article is a good example.

☺☺☺☺, america. i really like you and all but if you vote sarah palin, rick perry, or some other douche with the political mindset of a 12-year-old next year, you're going to end up in 4 or 8 years of the dark ages, if you're not there already.

Yup, it's a pretty bad article. Pedal is smarter than that, so my guess is that he's using it to poke and prod us a bit.

As to the candidates, it's not looking too good in America. Obama has been less than perfect, but I'd like to see better from the Republicans. In every election there's one or two crazies on either side of the system, but this time around it seems like the crazies outnumber the normal people. Huntsman seems to me the best candidate so far, but he gets no attention. His staff is taking issue with Perry's claim that global warming is a hoax. It's sad when the guy at the bottom of polls has to edify the candidates at the top. Santorum, who is very conservative, is a moderate in this group. He's actually talking about the need to compromise. If he's the moderate, that shows you how crazy the others are. Cain has called for impeachment and is anti-Muslim. Bachmann is a compulsive liar and thinks blacks had it better during the days of slavery. Perry doubts global warming and begins his campaign with accusations of treason against Bernanke. They've all signed pledges against gays. It's fine that there would be one or two of them who give voice to some odd notions, but it's kind of weird when it's become the norm. It's as if the democrats fielded a group of 9 or 10 candidates and Kucinich was the most conservative one.

This is a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to win next year, but they may not have anyone to pull it off. All the ones who stir up passion are a little too crazy for middle America, and Romney who's almost normal (except for tying his dog to the top of a stationwagon on a 1200 mile trip) will have a hard time rallying the Right's base. With unemployment as high as it is, Bob Dole or John McCain in their heyday would have no problem winning.

[elthrasher]

I recommend contacting the author if you have a cogent response you would like to discuss with him. This probably wouldn't qualify.

There's no point in doing that. Anybody who actually believes that Obama is lying to protect his background and asserts such in an article is freaking moonbat crazy. Of course he doesn't tell us what the lies are but I suppose it's that he's a Muslim who swears allegiance to Kenya ever night. Anybody who nods sagely at a line like "continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior" is similarly out of touch with reality or just disgustingly vile. That article is just an abomination of opinion journalism. No facts, just baseless assertions. Clearly the author is not a reasonable person interested in discussion or hearing my views.

[elthrasher]

Yup, it's a pretty bad article. Pedal is smarter than that, so my guess is that he's using it to poke and prod us a bit.

If you say so. So what's next? The writings of Brevick, Mein Kampf? I don't think we need this garbage polluting our discussion.

[elthrasher]

This is a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to win next year, but they may not have anyone to pull it off. All the ones who stir up passion are a little too crazy for middle America, and Romney who's almost normal (except for tying his dog to the top of a stationwagon on a 1200 mile trip) will have a hard time rallying the Right's base. With unemployment as high as it is, Bob Dole or John McCain in their heyday would have no problem winning.

This analysis is very conventionally wise, but the other thing is that Obama's favorabilities aren't dropping the way other presidents who have presided over high unemployment has. He's still doing okay in the polls as well. The media wants to make this a horserace, but it might not be. Especially if the Republicans nominate somebody really crazy (which, as you point out seems quite likely). Their party has drifted so far to the right that it seems they are unlikely to nominate anyone who can win the general.

Voters have said time and again they want politicians who will compromise (but maybe not quite so much as Obama does). Republicans keep saying they won't compromise. Did you see the recent debate (or maybe a clip from it?). When asked if they would accept a budget deal which included 10 parts cuts to 1 part tax increases, every single candidate said he or she would reject the deal.

[elthrasher]

All these articles about tax rates miss something essential and that is that all tax rates are completely arbitrary. There's no fair or unfair. All there is is a tax rate that creates a sort of society that you want and one that doesn't (or perhaps several on both counts).

I think that most Americans want a strong middle class, but our tax rate isn't good for that. In the 90s we had higher top marginal rates and the middle class grew. Then we dropped those rates and it shrank. There is direct cause and effect here. Higher taxes => more government money => more of that money is funneled back to the people, not in the form of handouts but by buying things (such as parks, roads, bridges, schools, scientific research, trips to the moon, cures for horrible diseases, etc.) for everybody and paying a contractor to build/perform/facilitate them.

Talking about a fair tax rate is pointless because what is fair to me isn't necessarily fair to you. The desired effect of taxation is where the discussion should lie.

Warren Buffett isn't necessarily making a fairness argument. He is saying that can pay a higher rate and it wouldn't discourage him from investing (the argument for keeping rates low). Government spending is the greatest stimulative force our economy can have. If you don't believe it, look at WWII and the aftermath there. We boomed for 25 years after that gigantic stimulus. All this austerity is just a bad idea, but that's another argument.

[elthrasher]

"Why should you be penalized for investing that money instead of spending it?"
good point BUT this is not the dichotomy - you cant just not tax - you have to balance the bidget so the trade is "why should you be penalized for investing when you could be penalized for working"
Not quite so convincing put that way?

Yes, that's well-stated. As for being "penalized for investing" that's just a load. When you invest, you see returns. There's your reward. When you buy something, you have that thing but your money never comes back. People will spend money to buy things they want and then invest what's left over. The tax rates are immaterial. This is what they will do. Duh.

[ScottieX]

Warren Buffett isn't necessarily making a fairness argument. He is saying that can pay a higher rate and it wouldn't discourage him from investing (the argument for keeping rates low).

I dont see many people actially defending that point so maybe we should take it as conceeded?

i think the main thing about raising tax rates is the incentive to move production overseas (in terms of companies) to displace individual income with company income (in terms of company rates being lower in effect than individual rates), money spent on accountants/lawyers for tax minimization and other such distortions like that. Ie it is less that you wont work or create jobs, but that you might do so in a distorted way.

so for example a flat global tax on labour (orwealth or sales) of a certain percent applicable to every transaction of the selected sort would have very little negitive impact in itself. Some countries doing it and others not would have some negitive impact.

[elthrasher]

Huntsman seems to me the best candidate so far, but he gets no attention

3rd reply to the same wonderful post! Huntsman clearly has a snowball's chance in today's Republican party:

http://twitter.com/#!/JonHuntsman/st...50677051654144

[elthrasher]

i think the main thing about raising tax rates is the incentive to move production overseas (in terms of companies) to displace individual income with company income (in terms of company rates being lower in effect than individual rates), money spent on accountants/lawyers for tax minimization and other such distortions like that. Ie it is less that you wont work or create jobs, but that you might do so in a distorted way.

That's why I favor a protective economy with tariffs to ensure there is no advantage to offshoring or outsourcing. Germany has done very well for itself this way and the United States of America could do a whole lot better.

[ScottieX]

That's why I favor a protective economy with tariffs to ensure there is no advantage to offshoring or outsourcing. Germany has done very well for itself this way and the United States of America could do a whole lot better.

much better than protectionism is international agreements regarding taxes and tax havens etc.

[ShowtekGER]

what about ron paul? i sharply disagree with him on many issues such as evolution and global warming but he would be so different than anything we've ever seen in western politics in regard to, for example, foreign affairs and war, drug policy and corporate power. i'd love to see him at the top just for those reasons. but i suppose it would foolish to believe that it may actually happen. many supporters of him allege that the (corporate-owned) mainstream media deliberately ignore him.