• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
There's no apologizing, it's simply a fact.

Now, there are exceptions where lower income people can readily move into the upper level, but to the extent they are hampered it is BECAUSE of government. Yes, that's right, government and it's rules and regulations hamper/stiffle the 'little guy' from innovation and moving into the upper echelon.

Do you think Henry Ford could start an auto manufacturing company today? Of course not. Try creating an auto and see how many millions of $'s it takes to shepherd it through the government approval process. There are plenty of good/successful auto's sold elsewhere around the world but not here because of that.

Same thing goes medicine/drugs. Jonas Salk couldn't get his vacine through the FDA unless he personally had upteen millions.

Then there's the whole realm of 'legal' issues (required disclosures, contracts etc).

Regulation = money, and big money.

Bottom line is it takes money to make money, now so more than ever (because of government and regulation). So you must expect the wealthy, who have the most money, to make more faster than the rest of of us. And that's a consequence of the current system - one that you seem to support, so no need to complain about it.

I'd have to think on it a bit longer, but seems to me in cases with a big strong powerful central government you're gonna find big disparities in wealth. It just comes with the territory.

Fern
Quoting this just because I try to explain this all the time and it falls on deaf ears. "Liberals" have been conned into thinking that big government is out to help the little guy.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
^^^Yes those pesky regulations (worker safety, health regulations, federal safety standards, etc.) nope, H. Ford couldn't start that company now, the way he did then, but others have made billions starting with nearly nothing...apple or dell ring a bell? I always hear the conservatives say "has a poor man ever offered you a job? or only a rich person hires"...where was all that hiring after the Bush tax cuts? I see the profits...not the job growth you righties like to brag about that tax cuts create.
 

TridenT

Lifer
Sep 4, 2006
16,810
45
91
Regulation is just a part of the deal. Idk if people would like all kinds of random drugs, vaccines, and such hitting the market with relatively little testing... :/
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
^^^Yes those pesky regulations (worker safety, health regulations, federal safety standards, etc.) nope, H. Ford couldn't start that company now, the way he did then, but others have made billions starting with nearly nothing...apple or dell ring a bell? I always hear the conservatives say "has a poor man ever offered you a job? or only a rich person hires"...where was all that hiring after the Bush tax cuts? I see the profits...not the job growth you righties like to brag about that tax cuts create.
Dell and Apple were started 25 and 35 years ago. And now that they exist, we have regulations to make sure nobody can challenge their dominance.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Regulation is just a part of the deal. Idk if people would like all kinds of random drugs, vaccines, and such hitting the market with relatively little testing... :/
New flash for the loser living in his mom's basement. Drugs already hit the market with insufficient testing. Whether or not you get approved by the FDA depends on what your campaign contributions are like.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
Dell and Apple were started 25 and 35 years ago. And now that they exist, we have regulations to make sure nobody can challenge their dominance.
So you are saying that no one has been successful (not dell successful, let's be reasonable) in a startup since in the last 25 to 35 years? :eek:

or are you saying you have a business model that would smoke dell & apple if it were'nt for those pesky regulations?
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
^^^Yes those pesky regulations (worker safety, health regulations, federal safety standards, etc.) nope, H. Ford couldn't start that company now, the way he did then, but others have made billions starting with nearly nothing...apple or dell ring a bell? I always hear the conservatives say "has a poor man ever offered you a job? or only a rich person hires"...where was all that hiring after the Bush tax cuts? I see the profits...not the job growth you righties like to brag about that tax cuts create.
I guess you forgot about the very low unemployment, middle class moving into upper middle class, etc. The bush years, specifically because of the tax cuts saved us and brought in a new level of prosperity for all. SPECIFICALLY the lower and middle class. Allowing them to lapse would send us into economic doom (but then again that is what Obama wants, his actions are willful and targeted...remember naw, naw, naw! Reject middle class Americka!)

I for one want those good times back and not this shit hole that is Obama.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
Got a link to those high paying jobs that were created during the Bush years with the tax cuts for the rich? (Maybe Wall Street & Investors) Only thing I can find was where the job creation was the lowest on record, And mostly service industry related. Yes, those that had some money and investments made money (alot off the housing market, we kinow how that worked out).

You just made a new siggy quote for someone here...."I for one want those good times back and not this shit hole that is Obama"
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
All I can say for sure is that there are obviously a lot of misconceptions expressed in this thread particularly by people who should know better.

Fern thinks the reason those at the top pay very low taxes is because of stock options, when it's capital gains and dividends.

He thinks Hedge Fund managers pay regular rates on their fees, when in fact they pay capital gains rates on much of it- reference "2 and 20" compensation schemes-

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/

He also thinks Henry Ford somehow didn't have investors, that he created the Ford Motor company w/o any capital. Quite the contrary.

And we get the usual fearmongering about how higher taxes on capital gains and dividends will stifle creativity. Creativity flourished in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when rates were much higher.

And the delusion that the individuals in question can and will somehow get rich someday if they let those currently rich have it all speaks for itself.

The phenomenon of America's wealthiest taking bigger and bigger slices of the pie isn't a function of big govt, at all. It's a function of taxes and offshoring, and simply didn't exist at the current level until Reaganomics came to the fore. Even as taxes have been cut at the top, time and time again, they've actually gone up for the rest of us in the form of payroll taxes, sales taxes, so forth and so on.

All of the emotional and ideological ravings aside, what needs to be examined are the results. Those results have been hugely detrimental to the middle class as a whole. Instead of assets created through wages, we get lines of credit. Instead of honest work creating things of value, we get to shuffle papers in circles. Instead of colllecting taxes, we borrow from the perps of the whole thing. Instead of extracting wealth and spreading it through to population with industry, we give it away in the form of balance of payment deficits, so that the profits of the financial elite are larger. We get cheap gas and cheap foreign goods, but only if we're lucky enough to be employed, and only so long as foreigners see value in American securities and assets.

What we're going to see in congress are various attempts to preserve all or part of the Bush taxcuts made to the middle and working classes, held hostage by repubs to the taxcuts made at the tippy-top. If the taxrates of the whole population go up, that'll be the reason, and none other. Faced with that choice, Dems will likely allow all of them to expire, or at least I hope so. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do, given the alternative, which is to allow the govt to go broke, crash the dollar, enhance the power of wealth even more. Whick is precisely what Repubs have been working towards for 30 years- a way to starve the beast.
 

TridenT

Lifer
Sep 4, 2006
16,810
45
91
So you are saying that no one has been successful (not dell successful, let's be reasonable) in a startup since in the last 25 to 35 years? :eek:

or are you saying you have a business model that would smoke dell & apple if it were'nt for those pesky regulations?
This.

Really, what business model can this guy crack up that would just ravage dell and apple? Do you a new iPod/iPhone killer? LOL.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
So you are saying that no one has been successful (not dell successful, let's be reasonable) in a startup since in the last 25 to 35 years? :eek:
So you think that nobody has had a good idea in the computer industry in the past 30 years that could unseat either of those companies?

You don't think that abuse of the GOVERNMENT patent system has helped Apple and other big players on top of the market make sure that no newcomers have a chance of competing? Ever heard of patent trolls?

You should probably learn how the world works before opening your uninformed face.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
So you think that nobody has had a good idea in the computer industry in the past 30 years that could unseat either of those companies?

You don't think that abuse of the GOVERNMENT patent system has helped Apple and other big players on top of the market make sure that no newcomers have a chance of competing? Ever heard of patent trolls?

You should probably learn how the world works before opening your uninformed face.
Patent laws, like all laws will be abused and pushed to their legal limits (especially be those with money and\or power).

everyone knows this. Even the uninformed like you should.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
Thanks for admitting that Fern and I are correct, and that the rich get richer because of regulation.
I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing that a new business model, if very sound, could still be profitable today, you just have to rethink the mousetrap to get around the barriers.

Don't even get me started on drug co.'s patents.

Edit: The rich get richer because ALL of the laws benefit them. That's what's wrong with the system.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing that a new business model, if very sound, could still be profitable today, you just have to rethink the mousetrap to get around the barriers.

Don't even get me started on drug co.'s patents.
You said yourself that laws, including patent law, will be abused to benefit the people with deeper pockets.

You may have well as come right out and said "Government helps the rich get richer."
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,320
3,991
136
You said yourself that laws, including patent law, will be abused to benefit the people with deeper pockets.

You may have well as come right out and said "Government helps the rich get richer."
Always has, no matter how "small or large" the government. The rich & powerfull always win, otherwise they'd be poor nobodys ;)

Edit: Also for the record, I don't consider patents, business regulations like OHSHA, etc.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
It's the fiscally responsible thing to do, given the alternative, which is to allow the govt to go broke, crash the dollar, enhance the power of wealth even more. Whick is precisely what Repubs have been working towards for 30 years- a way to starve the beast.
Could you please show me the math on how allowing only the tax cuts on the "rich" to expire will save us from any of that stuff? Maybe you got a magic calculator or something but it ain't adding up on mine.

The "fiscally responsible" thing to do is to raise everyones taxes due to our current fiscal situation AND cut drastically cut spending. Its debatable if now is the right time to do that but the argument should apply to all income levels and not just the middle class. Although certain loopholes should definitely be closed right now (like the hedge fund managers only paying capital gains) but that isn't what we are really talking about.

One last question, historically has the US been able to collect more than 20% of GDP in revenue regardless of the tax rates?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
Could you please show me the math on how allowing only the tax cuts on the "rich" to expire will save us from any of that stuff? Maybe you got a magic calculator or something but it ain't adding up on mine.

The "fiscally responsible" thing to do is to raise everyones taxes due to our current fiscal situation AND cut drastically cut spending. Its debatable if now is the right time to do that but the argument should apply to all income levels and not just the middle class. Although certain loopholes should definitely be closed right now (like the hedge fund managers only paying capital gains) but that isn't what we are really talking about.

One last question, historically has the US been able to collect more than 20% of GDP in revenue regardless of the tax rates?
I won't argue, but I will offer that tax increases have to start at the top to be politically palatable, and also to blunt the runaway shift of income to the ultra wealthy.

And cutting spending sounds peachy and all, but there's no consensus wrt where to cut. Righties love to rave about social welfare programs, which are only an exceedingly small part of non-SS expenditures. And they love to rave about SS, which is still basically self supporting. And they rave even louder when the Obama Admin attempts to limit Medicare expenditures. Any attempt to cut the military is met with another trumped up boogeyman, even though it's the fattest hog in pen... And there's no conceivable combination of conventional forces that could hope to stand against us and our allies, even if we spent half as much.

As for tax collections exceeding 20% of GDP, I don't think it's ever even been tried, certainly not in the post-WW2 era. Which doesn't mean it's impossible.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Thanks for admitting that Fern and I are correct, and that the rich get richer because of regulation.

Fern is right and so is J on the under-taxed part compared to your average worker.

Lets not forget

Attack type lawsuits like Apple is doing on HTC (what small company can defend that? They put you under if under capitalized as so often happens if you can't prove your right - which seems to correlate if you have the money to prove you're right)

Tax code itself. Where even a small businessman must hire a professional which adds to start up costs.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
All I can say for sure is that there are obviously a lot of misconceptions expressed in this thread particularly by people who should know better.

Fern thinks the reason those at the top pay very low taxes is because of stock options, when it's capital gains and dividends.

He thinks Hedge Fund managers pay regular rates on their fees, when in fact they pay capital gains rates on much of it- reference "2 and 20" compensation schemes-

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/

He also thinks Henry Ford somehow didn't have investors, that he created the Ford Motor company w/o any capital. Quite the contrary.

And we get the usual fearmongering about how higher taxes on capital gains and dividends will stifle creativity. Creativity flourished in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when rates were much higher.

And the delusion that the individuals in question can and will somehow get rich someday if they let those currently rich have it all speaks for itself.

The phenomenon of America's wealthiest taking bigger and bigger slices of the pie isn't a function of big govt, at all. It's a function of taxes and offshoring, and simply didn't exist at the current level until Reaganomics came to the fore. Even as taxes have been cut at the top, time and time again, they've actually gone up for the rest of us in the form of payroll taxes, sales taxes, so forth and so on.

All of the emotional and ideological ravings aside, what needs to be examined are the results. Those results have been hugely detrimental to the middle class as a whole. Instead of assets created through wages, we get lines of credit. Instead of honest work creating things of value, we get to shuffle papers in circles. Instead of colllecting taxes, we borrow from the perps of the whole thing. Instead of extracting wealth and spreading it through to population with industry, we give it away in the form of balance of payment deficits, so that the profits of the financial elite are larger. We get cheap gas and cheap foreign goods, but only if we're lucky enough to be employed, and only so long as foreigners see value in American securities and assets.

What we're going to see in congress are various attempts to preserve all or part of the Bush taxcuts made to the middle and working classes, held hostage by repubs to the taxcuts made at the tippy-top. If the taxrates of the whole population go up, that'll be the reason, and none other. Faced with that choice, Dems will likely allow all of them to expire, or at least I hope so. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do, given the alternative, which is to allow the govt to go broke, crash the dollar, enhance the power of wealth even more. Whick is precisely what Repubs have been working towards for 30 years- a way to starve the beast.
I wonder if any of these folks ever sat down a figured how much taxes they pay? I've done it before back when I worked for someone and it came in over 40%. How they can be cool with top .1% paying half as much as a percentage I'll never understand.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY