This message was self-deleted by its author

[kentuck]

This message was self-deleted by its author (kentuck) on Sat Nov 22, 2014, 09:22 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. "a progressive income tax rate of up to 90% on income that is not invested in job creation"

Billionaires aren't exactly keeping their money stuffed in mattresses. Whether it's in stocks, munis or a simple interest savings account it's going back into the economy. Even the buying of luxury yachts is good for the economy when you consider those who harvest the raw materials, the designers, craftsmen, transportation, distribution, retail, utilities, maintenance, crewing, dock rental etc.

[RiverLover]

4. Advocating "Trickle Down"? Here?

We've been waiting for that for 30 years...

[Lex]

6. You know, all those jobs created

by "luxury yacht" production.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Time for Supply side Jesus.

https://m.

[pkdu]

64. This is awesome...never seen it before. thx

[Hassin Bin Sober]

145. It's from Al Franken's book. Iirc, Lies And The Lying Liars

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. So people who do make their money building yachts deserve to be put out of work?

They should go back to lower wages because, you know, screw them.

[Lex]

26. It's not an "either - or" situation. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. I'm not following.

You dismissed the notion that there are enough jobs based on yachts as a argument against my statement that owning yachts creates jobs.

Either those jobs are worth having -- and I'll be presumptuous enough to assume that those who have them think the jobs are worth having -- or they're not. The number of those jobs is determined by consumer demand. I'm finding it hard to imagine a middle ground where some third party gets to decide who gets to work in the yacht building and servicing industry.

[saidsimplesimon]

41. If you don't know, don't presume? What 3d party, libertarians?

Can you explain the dynamics of a "consumer demand" for yachts? Just commenting, after all, what does a simple simon know?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. whuuuu?

[LiberalArkie]

84. Where was Steve Jobs yacht built?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Same place as John Kerry's?

Because Kerry actually bought his in New Zealand.

Apparently it was cheaper for him to fly to NZ, buy a yacht and crew it to bring it back to the US. Which he keeps in RI because the taxes for docking in his home state if MA are too high.

Now, he's super wealthy, he can afford that, but how many people would buy luxury yachts / boats but cannot afford to do so? Are the citizens and workers prospering by this arrangement?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

103. Think of the poor rich people, who cannot afford to buy luxury yachts!

And have to make do with dinky, non-luxury yachts...

I dunno, your line of argument doesn't quite have the same ring to it as 'Think of the children!'

I'm pretty sure the 'citizens and workers' would prosper more if that money was kept circulating around more local endeavours rather than being funnelled through 'luxury yacht building'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. For those in the yachting industry it is a local endeavor.

What are you going to replace their livelihoods with?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

135. I'm not. Because, if you'd paid attention,

the tax hike being suggested wasn't on 'yachts' or even on 'luxury goods'. It was simply on income. And on the sorts of levels of income that people aren't going to even quit buying their luxury yachts because they pay more.

Whether you're worth 1 Billion or 10 Billion, you can still afford your yacht.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. "the tax hike being suggested wasn't on 'yachts' or even on 'luxury goods'."

If you had paid attention you would have understood that my mentioning of yachts and luxury goods dovetailed off of the OP's discussion of things that improve the economy.

Luxury spending improves the economy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

138. And you're right back around to supply side trickle down nonsense.

Congrats, you've come full circle.

Yes, in some tiny little way, luxury spending improves the economy. But even analyses done by right wing think tanks show that spending on the basics of everyday life improves it far more, and that those dollars keep flowing through the economy faster. Luxury spending does 'improve the economy' - it's just the absolute worst way possible to improve it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

144. You either do not know or do not acknowledge

how many luxuries you have in your life.

[semanticwikiian]

104. it IS an either-or

Because economies are then driven by persons attracted to the 'fun' of owning a yacht; people who often revel in having fundamentally disrespectful values. Such values -- which tend to predominate & structure the society -- are disgusting to (most) people who operate on a human-to-human scale.

It's true an economy can be based on anything, including slaves, poisons, weapons of mass destruction, unregulated medicines and yes, even yachts. After thousands of years, Unicorn, our species' accumulated wisdom suggests it IS worthwhile to determine what is "allowed" to be the "norm" of a society.

But on a different level, your argument is "Johnny gets to do it, so why can't I?" The adult answer to your childish wonder is pretty obvious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. That's barely coherent and what is coherent is ridiculous.

Yachts are merely one sector of a vast and diverse economy.

No, people do not want to resign themselves to an economy that contents itself with nothing more than a subsistence living because every chance people get to have more living space, more diverse food choices, etc. they will grab it with gusto.

I like bananas. They don't grow anywhere near me for thousands of miles. I am willing to pay to support the growing, distribution and retail of the banana industry. Once upon a time that was a luxury.

Computers were a luxury but thankfully there are those who appeal to our greed for non-essentials and an entire industry has grown around supporting our self-indulgence for readily accessible porn and LOLcats.

[semanticwikiian]

115. and your reply is 100% non-responsive

[hack89]

50. Luxury yacht repair and maintence is a huge business in Rhode Island

People from all over the world bring their boats here and it is a rare source of high paying non-college degree jobs.

[Lex]

56. I didn't say there weren't jobs at all.

I also didn't say those jobs weren't important to the people who have them. Nor that they should go away.
Point is, you don't have to kill the luxury yacht business in order to have a broader based (more people who thrive in the economy can buy more boats) to have a thriving overall boat building/maintaining/repairing sector.

[hack89]

58. I agree- there is room for all. Nt

[Lex]

62. Exactly.

The billionaires would have people think if they didn't get to hoard the money, then the economy would fail.

[7962]

61. Well, everyone, you asked how many could REALLY work in it. Here's your answer.^^^

[Lex]

5. Very few jobs go to production of "luxury yachts" comparatively.

Wealth inequality isn't healthy for any economy.

[Nye Bevan]

8. The 10% luxury tax on yachts introduced in 1990 almost destroyed the US boat-building industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

[Lex]

11. In the article --> "the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war"

Reasons stated other than the whining about the tax.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Well it's not like we can do anything about the wars.

I hate using this

[GummyBearz]

25. Yep.

As a very wealthy individual once said, if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it. I doubt an extra 10% draws a line in the sand about what the very wealthy will spend on a luxury item.

[hack89]

54. The associated sales, repair and service jobs do, however

The high end yacht industry is big money in Rhode Island - we have made ourselves an international center for yacht maintenance and repair with lots of high paying jobs.

[Lex]

60. Of course there are.

Again:
I didn't say those jobs weren't important to the people who have them. Nor that they should go away.

Point is, you don't have to kill the luxury yacht business in order to also have a broader based (more people who thrive in the economy can buy more boats) to have a thriving overall boat building/maintaining/repairing sector.

[Thor_MN]

69. You mean Rhode Island, home to about 0.3% of the US population, is hunky dory?

By all means, let's create tax incentives to luxury yacht manufacturers to stimulate the economy ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. RI can't be all bad. John Kerry parks his yacht there to skirt MA state taxes.

[Thor_MN]

82. Nothing bad about Rhode Island, other that arguments about the US economy

based on an insignificant fraction of it are, well, insignificant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. It's not insignificant to the people in RI who work in the yachting industry.

I'm sure they're rather fond of their jobs and would probably make their disdain known for any pol who advanced the idea that yachts were a frivolous luxury that should be taxed with disregard to their livelihoods.

[Thor_MN]

95. People who work in the yachting industry are insignificant to the US economy.

There are always winners and losers. The current problem is that there are very few winners, and they are winning big. There a some people who are doing OK by servicing the big winners.

Distracting from solutions to the problem by drawing attention to a few people that are doing OK is nothing more that a distraction.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. Sounds more like envious cranks whining.

How will life for anyone be improved by gutting the yachting industry?

[Thor_MN]

99. So torch the entire fucking nation for the sake of a couple of boat mechanics....

Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. You spent the first part of this thread grousing that the yacht industry was

insignificant. How could failing to tax the yacht industry into oblivion lead to torching "the entire fucking nation"? You even repeat as much saying, "for the sake of a couple of boat mechanics."

A couple of boat mechanics (way to look out for the working man there, fella) are going to ruin the nation?

You aren't being consistent in your own premise.

[Thor_MN]

112. No, you have you head so buried up "Trickle Down" that you can't see anything else.

The Luxury Marine maintenance industry will rise and fall with the tides of the rich. It is unarguably so small a fraction of the entire US economy that basing policy for the US economy on it would be ridiculous to even the most inept.

You presume that any change to current policy would instantly kill every luxury yacht worker, also a concept that is entirely laughable.

A couple of mechanics is the entire working force of the nation?

This whole line of distraction you are on, from the concept of returning to the tax policies that led to the greatest expansion of the US economy in history is ridiculous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. "basing policy for the US economy on it"

Apparently the half dozen other times I have rejected this exact same point of argument seems to have eluded you.

You're rebutting an argument I have not made and would never consider making.

I have no where claimed "basing the US economy" on the yacht industry. I have defended the producing and buying of luxuries. I used yachts as an example. Luxuries that I have named include yachts, bananas and computers -- a luxury you avail yourself of with an astounding degree of futility.

[Thor_MN]

122. Please cite one time in your line of distraction where you use "example"

other than the previous post. One would think that your very life depended on the presence on luxury yachts existing. That there existed or was a proposed tax so onerous that it would instantly force every person who ever touched a boat for a price into bankruptcy.

Your arguments are laughable. Since all I am doing is feeding your true purpose of distracting from the OP, I'll leave you to have a ridiculous last word.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. I have posted throughout this thread that yachting is not the end-all, be-all of the US economy.

For you to claim otherwise if to demonstrate your need to run away and hide behind non-issues. yachting actually means nothing to me individually, all the more so considering the fact I live in a landlocked state.

Why don't you stop distracting with fabricating things that have never been argued.

Your arguments are laughable.

Yet unrefuted.

[hack89]

92. Good jobs are good jobs

They mean a lot to those that have them.

[Thor_MN]

98. Good jobs for a very small fraction of 0.3% of the popuation is a mosquito on the ass of an elephant

Way to distract!!! Good for you for going on and on about a minscule fraction of the US economy!!!

[hack89]

117. It is not like they are a drain on the economy

I don't understand your desire to fuck over a group of workers, no matter how small, for your particular agenda. You don't like rich people- got it.

[Thor_MN]

119. More distraction... I'm not fucking over anyone, you are fucking over most of the US.

Tax policy, as outlined in the OP, would help counter the major problem in the US, income inequality.

The miniscule number of Luxury yacht would be replaced by a much larger number of pleasure craft and a wee, teeny, tiny number of people would leave their luxury yacht maintenance wage job to start their own pleasure craft maintenance businesses.

[hack89]

121. Where did I state that I oppose fairer tax laws?

I just pointed out that the luxury boat industry is a big part of our economy.

It would be even better for us if there were luxury yachts and more smaller boats. No need to replace luxury boats.

[Thor_MN]

126. The maintenance of luxury yachts is such a tiny portion of the US economy

that one would spend days trying to find it in a detailed report. It doesn't even make up a significant portion of the economy of Rhode Island, which was cited. Rhode Island is about 0.3% of the US population. Even discussing such a small fraction of the economy in a discussion of tax policy is ridiculous.

I'll leave you to add another line of distraction.

[hack89]

130. So there should be no luxury boats at all?

Their mere existence is proof that our tax laws have failed? Really?

Fortunately for the workers of Rhode Island many such boats are foreign owned so we will still be ok. Lots of little American boats and some foreign mega yachts will work just as well.

[JaneyVee]

9. What's better for an economy...

One millionaire buying a yacht, or millions of middle class buying a boat?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Ask the craftsmen building the boats.

Why should they be constrained to building mass-produced boats when they could earn more for their families because their skill set allows them to?

[JaneyVee]

17. I will. I'm going to ask them.

[CJCRANE]

10. Money stashed in tax havens in the Caribbean and Europe doesn't contribute to the real economy.

Nor do fancy financial instruments that tie money up in abstract ways.

And for the price of a billionaire's yacht you could probably get a hundred vans or trucks for working people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "Money stashed in tax havens..."

Could be taxed at 180,861% but you still can't touch a dime of it.

And for the price of a billionaire's yacht you could probably get a hundred vans or trucks for working people.

To do what? Have a fleet of trucks that have nothing to haul?

[world wide wally]

37. You tax it before it gets there.

Which would be possible without all the obstruction from Republicants

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Taxes on goods and services sold in the US does get taxed.

Corporations that HQ in the US get taxed on ALL receipts earned, even for goods and services sold overseas.

[world wide wally]

51. That is why they set up HQ's at post offices in the Cayman Islands. Ask Mitt about that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. I'm not sure why you sound so upset with me about that fact.

[world wide wally]

72. I'm not upset with you at all. I just want to point out that there was a time when we taxed up

to 90% on the uber rich and the country and economy worked far better than it does today.
Can anyone show me a person who quit their million dollars per year job to drive a school bus just to avoid the taxes on a million?

[MANative]

13. This article, and about a dozen more like it, belie your premise...

"Rich hoard cash as their wealth reaches record high"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102198213

They are, apparently, hoarding cash, and it's hurting them, although far less than it's hurting the rest of us.

[truebluegreen]

16. How many luxury yachts would be necessary to support an economy of 300 million people?

And how many can afford to buy them? There was an article just last week lamenting the fact that the super rich are pulling away from the merely very rich and the resulting drop in the market for smaller private planes. And if you think billionaires are investing in munis or savings accounts, that is the equivalent of "stuffing it in a mattress" given the return on those items.

Why do you think the gambling on toxic derivatives, money laundering for drug cartels and other Wall St shenanigans are so popular? Because of the amount of capital sloshing around in the system looking for Big Returns, that's why. That is money that is most certainly NOT being invested in anything useful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. How on Earth did you come to make an argument about an entire economy based on yachts?

You couldn't base an entire economy on computers either, yet here we are nonetheless.

Why do you think the gambling on toxic derivatives, money laundering for drug cartels and other Wall St shenanigans are so popular? Because of the amount of capital sloshing around in the system looking for Big Returns, that's why. That is money that is most certainly NOT being invested in anything useful.

Yachts are not derivatives, it's a material asset. You're not even arguing in the same category.

[truebluegreen]

27. It was the most obviously bogus part of your argument.

An economy based on luxury items for a few would work...about as well as ours has been. It can in no way support a middle class, but of course it has been used as an argument for giving more money to the Job Creators.

And, as your response indicates, my argument was not based solely on "an entire economy based on yachts." Billionaires aren't investing in our economy; that's the whole point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I never argued on an economy based on luxury goods. You're fighting things that are not there.

I defend luxury goods, i.e. things like computers; but I make no assumption that luxuries in and of themselves are the defining characteristic of an economy. They speak to a healthy, growing economy but that is not the same as saying they ARE the economy.

[truebluegreen]

40. OK.

What about your statement that billionaires are investing in our economy? Do you care to defend that? Do you consider gambling on Wall St. investing in our economy? You do realize that other than an IPO, the money to purchase stock does not go to the company, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Not every billionaire became such by gambling on derivatives and hedge funds.

You're falling into a categorical error, i.e. all horses are animals but not all animals are horses.

Yes, there are bad people who are rich but not all rich people are bad. I'd be perfectly fine with seeing derivatives and other high-risk vehicles made illegal or at least greatly reformed to require far stricter capitalization rules (don't hold your breath though; the government you're counting on to do that is the same one that allowed them in the first place). Not that that has anything to with my initial post but you seem to need reassuring.

[truebluegreen]

48. You are guilty of making assumptions since I am speaking generally, not categorically.

I haven't said "billionaires are bad people." I do think that massive wealth inequality is bad and the sooner it is addressed the better.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Well, I never brought up derivatives. It was a very specific charge brought to an argument

where I myself was speaking in generalities. I think it's understandable how that could lead to my assuming you were making such an assumption.

[truebluegreen]

120. Whatevs.

I guess I just find it remarkable to hear anyone on this board stick up for billionaires 'cause they contribute to the economy too!...what they have actually done, generally speaking, is loot it.

[Blanks]

21. Who is advocating for a tax on wealth...

Bill Gates was drawing a small salary when he became a billionaire. He didn't pay income taxes on that increased wealth, he paid income taxes on the salary.

A lot of what is categorized as capital gains should be categorized as income, but if one has worked hard to build a business that is increasing in value, they aren't taxed on that increased value (at least not by the federal government) until they sell the business, and even then it is not taxed as income, but rather as capital gains (a lower rate).

In other words: advocating for an increase in income tax rates is not the same as advocating for a tax on wealth. A tax on wealth (real and personal) would be historically levied on property taxes which go toward local expenditures such as schools, streets and police and fire. Typically not levied at the federal level, but rather at the local/city/county level.

While those should also be increased, when one talks about increasing income tax rates - that's not what they're talking about.

[Alittleliberal]

29. But a Billionaire only buys so may yachts.

The issue isn't rich people buying lot's of shit that we deem the don't need. The problem is saving gratuitous amounts of money. Every dollar sitting in an account not getting spend hurts the economy. Poor people spend their money and it generates more wealth. Rich people get to save more. That's not good for capitalism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. They buy enough to sustain an industry that pays good wages.

Every dollar sitting in an account not getting spend hurts the economy.

Money in accounts is used (traditionally) to fund loans for mortgages, businesses etc.

[CJCRANE]

36. But the banks aren't lending enough. They got the bailouts and QE.

They hit paydirt with the financial crisis bailouts and interventions. Now they're sitting on trillions of taxpayer and government moolah.

So there's no need for them to lend money to the plebs, they got theirs already.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I despise the QE policy for exactly the same reason. It pumps money into the pockets of a

select few and it distorts the banking system -- which is why I put the word "traditionally" in parenthesis.

So there's no need for them to lend money to the plebs, they got theirs already.

Pretty much but what is going to hurt the plebs even more is: If the economy does not expand to account for the additional currency in circulation then we will see -- TADA! -- currency inflation. The only way to guard against currency inflation would be to restrict the money supply banks purchase which then leads to -- TADA! -- interest rate inflation.

Both of which hurt the lower and middle class more than it hurts the currency speculators who may actually profit because they can use their hedge funds into gaining vehicles.

[trekbiker]

108. I dont have one dime in a savings account or CD

but I have a pretty good sized pile of money in high Div stocks and options trading. It would be nice if my investments created jobs but I'm no financial fool. The secondary market is a high income game that doesn't do much for the economy. Hedge fund managers and Goldman, etc. could not give one shit for job creation. Trickle down is just propaganda for the foolish masses. Dividends and Capital gains need to be progressively taxed just like earned income. But they never will be.

Give Limbaugh 20 million in tax breaks and he isnt creating jobs with that money. He is effectively removing it from circulation and doing what most wealthy people do, raking in dividend and capital gain income taxed at low rates (or sheltering off shore). Give that 20 million in tax breaks to 20,000 middle or low income people (@ $1000 each) and it is nearly instantly injected back into the economy. That is real job creation. Another good reason the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation (with an instant bump to $10-$15/hr to catch up for the last 30 years)

[onecaliberal]

52. Actually it's hidden overseas.

There are trillions in Swiss accounts alone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. Goods and services sold in the US are taxed. Overseas corporations do not get taxed on receipts

for goods and services sold overseas. Having an HQ in the US would make the company responsible for receipts sold overseas. That is what the companies are dodging.

[onecaliberal]

94. See this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603448/Super-rich-richer-thought-increasingly-hide-money-overseas-tax-havens.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. I don't deny the existence of tax havens. I'm saying that taxes are paid on what is

sold in the US. Tax havens shield the company from paying US taxes on revenues generated outside the US.

[7962]

57. Nobody here understands you, Nuke.

Nor the fact that rich people will ALWAYS find a way around high taxes. Hardly anyone ever paid the high rates of 50+ yrs ago.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. I'd be OK with them not understanding me but the lack of understanding Econ 101 is disheartening. nt

[7962]

73. I should've said they dont WANT to understand.

Besides, to be realistic, theres no way we'd ever have a tax that high regardless of how many DUers would love it. And there arent enough super rich to tax that it would make any difference to the treasury anyway. Then it just becomes more about punishment.

[Thor_MN]

71. George HW? I didn't know you used the internet...

[Veilex]

65. "buying of luxury yachts is good for the economy"

A single rich guy buying a single yacht has negligible effect on the economy.
Having all rich folk buy a family yacht, also has negligible effect on the economy.
Those who harvest the raw materials, likely have already been doing so for numerous other clients.
Transportation, distribution, retail, utilities, maintenance, crewing, dock rental etc. all pre existing services.
A guy buying a yacht is not exactly a job creator.

But don't take my word for it. Take a look at this:

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. "Billionaires aren't exactly keeping their money stuffed in mattresses"

Might as well be. It's not in circulation. It's socked away in tax shelters earning interest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. Even a tax shelter is an investment, of sorts.

I do not agree with them because they invite corruption but a tax shelter is the government incentivizing investment in a given sector of the economy, i.e. renewable energy is a good investment because you get tax breaks, ergo investors put their money into renewable energy so as to realize a higher return.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. Yeah,...the Cayman Islands does us a world of good....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Do they make winter coats in the Caymans?

Caymans is a haven, not a shelter. That's not to argue semantics, but it's the word you used.

As for overseas tax havens -- I already pointed out several times that goods and services sold in the US are taxed. Even foreign companies owned by foreign citizens pay such taxes here in the US. Moving a corporate HQ overseas does not shield a company from paying taxes on goods and services sold in the US, they don't pay taxes on goods and services sold outside the US.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

109. Face it. The BIG companies have it rigged so they pay ZERO. Some even come out ahead.

[Helen Borg]

74. 90% on all income above a certain level. Period.

It could be a fairly high threshold.

[on point]

81. So you advocate a return to the feudal times so we can all work for the aristocracy??

I mean all those luxury estates and wild parties for the rich supported lots of servants and cake eaters....

Just not an independent middle class.

No, restore tax rates and enough of this supplyside nonsense which has been proven empirically not to work

And please stop quoting ALEC and the US Chamber of Commerce for your arguments. They are old, tired and completely discredited. People here are interested in solving problems, not fighting the tools that work to keep the problems going.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. Taxing luxury goods into oblivion isn't going to add 1 dime to your pocket.

Nor is allowing luxury goods to be produced and sold going to make you a serf. Get a grip already. Feudalism? Seriously?

They are old, tired and completely discredited. People here are interested in solving problems, not fighting the tools that work to keep the problems going.

I'm citing Econ 101.

Fact -- Yachts do not materialize out of thin air. If someone wants a yacht they have to pay people to harvest the materials, others to transport those materials, others to craft, others to distribute, more to retail, some more to crew, more to house, even more to maintain. That's not counting the utilities, roads etc. that are supported and support the sector. These jobs tend to pay better than factory work because they require more skill and the buyer has more money to spend.

These are all facts.

[on point]

91. Sorry the supplyside experiment evidence is in. It is a FAILURE.

The Chicago school of economics has led the world astray and is killing economies everywhere.

Go back to Keynes and get in touch with reality.

There can never be enough luxury yachts to support the economy for all.

What's more, investing in a yacht is NOT investing in the economy for everyone. Far better to tax that wealth off the off .01 percent and use it to invest in something that does invest in the economy, like infrastructure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. "There can never be enough luxury yachts to support the economy for all."

No one sector of the economy is enough to support all. Not even food, housing, education, clothing and medicine. That's why there are different sectors of the economy. Just because ONE THING cannot support an entire economy does not devalue that ONE THING. it has value to the consumer and it has value to the producer.

Computers and the internet cannot sustain the entire world economy -- yet, here you are.

And you're making-up an argument I never made. I never suggested yachts are the end all, be all of the economy. Luxury goods -- to include all personal discretionary spending -- do add to the economy. For the people who do supply luxury goods it is a very good job for them and many times they are able to sell their skills for wages above the median. Why should they be denied that opportunity to prosper?

What's more, investing in a yacht is NOT investing in the economy for everyone. Far better to tax that wealth off the off .01 percent and use it to invest in something that does invest in the economy, like infrastructure.

To what end?

Roads don't create jobs elsewhere. Roads only have a value if there are jobs to travel to, goods to distribute, etc. (or, Heaven forfend, luxury vacations to take). Things only have value if a consumer wants them and then their value is determined by what the consumer is willing to pay.

You cannot escape that fact, either.

[kentuck]

102. You make a very fine Republican argument, Nuclear Unicorn...

Did you know that?

[azureblue]

113. yep

he's all full of generalizations, scare words, and pretty oblivious to the reality. Tax the crap out of luxury items and guess what - that money will wind up in your pocket because then your taxes can be reduced. Or you can enjoy improved infrastructure, like highways, etc., reduced college costs. Indeed, he makes the classic trickle down argument, basically saying the middle class should bear the tax burden, while the upper classes get the tax breaks and loopholes. Bullshit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. Did you know that isn't a rebuttal but rather an admission of defeat?

Your intent is to silence me and stop me from writing what I write but in actuality you're just saying X has offered an argument and that argument cannot be refuted -- which is really just another way of saying, X has the correct answer.

(X being me, not the Republicans.)

[kentuck]

123. I don't want to silence you...

You are doing a pretty good job at it by yourself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

128. Do you have an actual rebuttal or just an accusation of Wrong-Think?

[kentuck]

131. The rebuttal that I have is that supply-side economics has failed miserably...

..and you are full of shit for attempting to argue its merits here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. I don't know about supply-side economics but I do know that industries, such as yachting

produce jobs. The luxury goods do not materialize ex nihilo. That is the fact I have stated. That is the fact I have based my argument on. That is a fact that remains unrefuted.

Yachts are an easy target for some to argue against but those making such arguments tend to overlook the luxuries in their own lives; such as the computers and internet they use to grouse about the luxuries in other people's lives. Even things like bananas are a luxury. You and I may think nothing of it but for most of the world the thought of importing food from thousands of miles away is a concept that would blow their imaginations away. DU has a cooking and baking forum where people talk about spices that were shipped from around the world while most of the world those spices pass by can't find enough to fill their bellies for the night. hell, there were even wars fought over trade routes to supply spices.

And we take it all for granted. In fact, we'll get on our luxury smartphones to post on our luxury websites to bitch to the Heavens if anybody dares to interrupt our sweet gig.

Are yacht-builders, crews and mechanics the bane of our existence? No. Our arrogance and profound lack of self-awareness and gratitude will undue us.

[kentuck]

139. It is not about yachts...

It is about people that buy yachts. They are going to buy their yachts, whatever the cost. They don't have the time or the desire to comparison shop.

Yes, it's about supply-side economics. There is no need to pretend you have never heard of it. It has been very destructive for our country and taxcuts are it's reason for existence.

It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to argue otherwise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

146. "They are going to buy their yachts, whatever the cost."

Unless they can go someplace else to get a better deal. John Kerry for instance. Not only did he spend the time to comparison shop he also spent the money to fly to New Zealand to buy his yacht, then he spent the money to hire a crew to sail it back for him. Now he parks it in RI because it's cheaper for him to commute to RI than pay the docking taxes in MA.

I still haven't gotten an answer about THE PEOPLE who make their livelihoods. "It's about the people that buy yachts" is the only answer my detractors have given. And probably the truest.

I get it. Y'all didn't get your yacht and y'all didn't get your ponies either. And for that sin no one else can either. Those who can buy yachts are to be hated and scorned because -- UNFAIR!

Nevermind how unfair it would be for those who make their livelihoods to lose those livelihoods. And doing so won't add a dime to anyone else's pocket. What next? Luxury home builders? Luxury cars manufacturers? The vacation industry? What other sectors of the economy should we destroy with nothing to gain from it except the smug self-satisfaction we showed them Richie Riches?

Meanwhile, everyone wants to remind me (as if I didn't know or it had any relevance to my main point) that the obscenely rich can take their money overseas. Wait. What? I'm being pilloried for supposedly espousing supply side economics but everyone else is saying low tax areas draw money away from high tax areas. Hmmm. Why do you suppose the Cayman Islands wants to draw in money with low tax rates? Or for that matter, why do you think an evil multi-national mega-corporation like Nabisco sent me a 25%-Off coupon for their products?

The sad complaint about "SUPPLY SIDE!" isn't a rebuttal. It's an attempt to make me go away. I'm not espousing supply side. I'm stating the plain fact that people earn their livelihoods from luxury goods. If you're willing to destroy the livelihood of thousands to have tantrum against a few dozen then at least have backbone to say it outright.

Yet, GM needed a bailout I don't remember anybody bitching about Cadillac getting a slice of the money. All I remember is people saying we needed to save the jobs of American workers.

[kentuck]

150. Would you consider these "luxury" items?

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/photos/a.91485152907.84764.9124187907/10152840210907908/?type=1&theater

But the bottom line is that we should not sacrifice the bottom 99% for the top 1%, regardless of how many yachts they might buy. Workers on yachts would probably have an easier time finding employment than some other Americans in other jobs, such as coal mining, might have?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

151. How does someone employing people to build and maintain a yacht sacrifice the 99%?

Do people buying a Cadillac luxury car screw over the 99%?

If it's anyone sacrificing workers, it's those who seek to destroy entire industries based on nothing more than a nonsensical need for revenge over -- something.

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/photos/a.91485152907.84764.9124187907/10152840210907908/?type=1&theater

Then don't fly in Boeing aircraft. Better yet, demand they be driven out of business. That'll be sure to help the workers.

Supposedly supply side teaches "creative destruction." Yet some people here seem to think they can lay waste to entire sectors of the economy and suddenly the world is going to grow brand new jobs in whatever politically approved nonsense they can dream up. Up and down this thread I have encountered people saying we should tax the industry into oblivion and use the money to build roads.

I asked, for what purpose. No answer was forthcoming. I guess we just --

1. Build road

2. ???

3. Profit!

Presumably, a road would allow someone to import materials to build a factory, then workers would drive to the factory, the goods produced therein would then be shipped to market.

Unless it's a yacht. We can't have that. If Kerry wants a yacht he'll just have to go to New Zealand because we're so pure spirit and noble of heart that we won't allow our workers to be sullied by such things.

[kentuck]

156. You completely confuse the point.

They make all this money, and then they take the jobs overseas, along with the wealth from the labor and production. In the meantime, we cut education, food aid for the needy, cannot make investments, such as infrastructure, that we need, just so the wealthy can keep their money hidden someplace. And we tax the middle class to make up the difference. Our country is going down the toilet because of this inequality and you have no problem with it? Or it somehow has something to do with all those millions of people that work at making yachts?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. Why are the jobs going elsewhere?

[kentuck]

161. Surely you jest?

It's not because of high tax rates.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

162. Lots of people up and down this thread have felt the need to tell me

corporations are going to the Cayman Islands to escape taxes. In fact, the terms "tax haven" vs "tax shelter" was even a point of contention for moment. I guess they're mistaken. Would you please tell them the real reason?

[kentuck]

163. Basically ...

Greed.

Cheap labor with the greatest return.

If they can get a tax break for moving jobs overseas, so much the better. And many of them do.

Then they want to bring backall their profits to the US, with the help of their paid politicians, and not pay any taxes on them? Do you know why?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

165. "Do you know why?"

money

Then they want to bring backall their profits to the US, with the help of their paid politicians...

Would these be the same politicians you're depending on to bring you economic Utopia? Do you really think you're going to find (435 + 100 + 1) * 0.51 politicians from now until forever to hand you everything you've staked your hopes and dreams upon?

[whopis01]

107. And all those billions in stocks, munis, or a simple interest savings account will not be touched by

a progressive income tax rate of up to 90% on income that is not invested in job creation.

The key word is "income".

You are correct that there is an economic benefit to the buying of luxury yachts. The money spent on such things is not removed from the economy. However, neither is money which is collected as taxes. It isn't as if the government just collects taxes and then removes that amount of money from the economy. Government spending on things such as infrastructure, health care, research, eduction all put that money back into the economy. Just like a billionaire buying a yacht, there is an ongoing economic benefit to the spending.

So we can agree that the purchasing of goods and services has economic benefit regardless of whether it is done by a billionaire or by the government, right? So then what is the point of the progressive tax? It is to limit the rate at which wealth disparity increases. It doesn't eliminate wealth disparity. It doesn't stop a billionaire from accumulating more wealth. It doesn't take away wealth that is already owned. It merely scales the difficulty to generate income based on the amount of income that you already have.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. Maybe.

So we can agree that the purchasing of goods and services has economic benefit regardless of whether it is done by a billionaire or by the government?

Only if the government spends it on something of value. Calling a thing "research" or "education" doesn't make it so and the government has a bad reputation when it comes to product labeling. National defense is also an investment but when it comes to the F-35 and the NSA they produce things that do not work and people do not want. A regular business would have to adjust itself in the face of such realities but the government gets to take its revenue from you with the understanding that if you decline it isn't a cashier you're snubbing but police -- with guns.

It is to limit the rate at which wealth disparity increases. It doesn't eliminate wealth disparity.

Or --

The 1% exert regulatory capture and ensure the up-and-comers cannot compete against them thus insulating themselves. And the pols are only too happy to accommodate QED, my thread blasting the glaringly obviousness of the millions heaped on Chelsea Clinton so as to exert patronage by proxy to Hillary.

[awoke_in_2003]

147. You're right, they aren't stuffing their mattresses...

they are offshoring most of their money where it is doing the economy no good at all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. I've addressed that point half dozen times.

[Nye Bevan]

2. The Obamas will probably earn well over $100 million during the 10 to 15 years after his presidency.

And most congressmen and senators will go on to earn big bucks either on Wall Street or as highly paid lobbyists.

Do you seriously expect any of these folk to start advocating for a top tax rate of 70%?

[kentuck]

3. Maybe they don't need my vote?

I would not hesitate to withhold it.

[HereSince1628]

7. Break-away wealth is a threat to democracy and foreshadows oligarchy/feudalism

At one point in my life I would say, as most liberals do, that I have nothing against wealth.

I still have nothing against people being very financially successful but I now recognize that break-away wealth, and inheritance of break-away wealth, kills democracy.

In my mind, break-away wealth is achieved when the amount of disposable wealth controlled by a private individual or corporation approaches the amount of money needed to purchase politicians. The result of such purchase is that control of government is turned over to the will of the few exceedingly rich handing out payola.

Taxation, specifically including taxation on political donations, is the only practical curb on that process.

[TBF]

12. What do you mean by

"re-invested back into the economy"? Rich folks are going to say that everything they do is re-invested back - from stock purchases to buying luxury items at high-end boutiques.

The thing that has really made a difference since the 80s I believe is the way every president has cut capital gains taxes. Investments used to be taxed the same as income but now are taxed at about 1/2 that rate. That is how the very wealthy are making money hand over fist.

[louis-t]

23. Except for the $7 trillion that is hidden offshore.

[TBF]

46. No kidding -

my point is exactly your comment. I think the things the very wealthy are doing are so beyond the average person's awareness that it is really going to take some work to get things where they need to be (frankly I don't think it's going to be done peacefully in the end, but we can try).

1. My family is professional class. Lots of income, much goes right back to student loans. There are a bunch of doctors and lawyers in this subset who don't really have much net worth after you subtract what they owe. Yet there is still money coming in and I certainly don't object to higher taxes on that income (particularly if it goes right into programs that help others - as opposed to buying yet another bomber).

2. The millionaires & billionaires you need to get to may not even have the type of income most people think of - unless they happen to own a business or are a high level attorney, specialist doctor, or high level investment banker. Inherited wealth is a huge factor here - and the reinvestment of it. That is what I was getting at with capital gains. Unless you are taxing the money they are making on their investments (and the trades themselves) you're never going to capture the bulk of the wealth that they have. Especially if they, as you say, are moving the bulk of it off-shore. I don't know enough about investments to know how they do that - but we need to know if we're going to get to it.

3. Corporations. It drives me up the wall if I know 30% of my income (we are technically self-employed) is going straight to the IRS but GE is in fact getting a lower tax bill. That's fucked up. We need to know what corporations are taxed and how they are getting away with all these loopholes. Maybe instead of talking about flat taxes for individuals we should be talking about flat taxes for corporations. The system is so complex that very few understand it but we do hear that they end up with no taxable income. How can that be?

These are the kinds of things that I'm questioning and that I think we need a lot more info on ...

[7962]

68. #3-Yes. Flat tax for corporations would do away with most of the tax evasion

Reduce the rate, do away with deductions, and also reduce the cost of enforcement. More foreign companies will invest here if they know they dont have to join in the "avoid the 25% tax" game. Most dont pay that only because they have a bunch of lawyers to get them out of it using deductions, deferments and other tactics. A flat rate of 10% will likely bring in more revenue than the current higher rate

[lancer78]

152. I will say this

deductions do encourage corporations to expand their business.

[7962]

168. True, it could stop some borderline purchases. nt

[TBF]

170. But how does that help

ordinary workers? The gap between rich & poor is so wide that we are back to pre-WWI days.

I know it has to be frustrating for small business as well - they can barely pay the wages to compete with corporations. Everyone is getting screwed by these mega-corporations being allowed to operate as if they are above the law.

[woolldog]

24. Oh great, another authoritarian on DU.

Wonderful.

[truebluegreen]

28. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....<gasp>

Fail.

[geek tragedy]

31. Does spending count as reinvestment?

There's already a tax on cash hoarding. It's called inflation.

[NaturalHigh]

34. We had a surplus at the end of the Clinton era.

I think the Clinton-era tax rates worked just fine.

[world wide wally]

39. That was largely because Clinton managed to avoid wars.

What a concept!

[NaturalHigh]

43. Yes, there was that too.

[Sirveri]

167. Other than Serbia, Iraq, Noriega... I could probably find more...

He did manage to avoid large scale catastrophe's.

[lancer78]

153. We would have a surplus now

If the defense budget was the same that it was under Clinton.

[abelenkpe]

35. All money should be taxed the same too

Basically go back to the tax rates under Eisenhower and do something to stop offshoring.

[kentuck]

38. K.I.S.S.

Complexity serves no purpose except to confuse.

[DrBulldog]

44. I am old enough to remember a much smarter America 60 years ago and the 90% tax rate.

Why smarter? First, that was the time of the highest SAT scores EVER. Second, our government ran in the black. Third, our infrastructure was booming. And finally it was the time that the hall of fame quarterback Bart Starr was asked, "How do you handle the 90% tax rate you have to pay?".

He answered (a paraphrase): "I am forced to shelter most of my high income as deductions by investing it into job-producing companies and everyone else with high incomes has to do the same. So I eventually get my money - but after it has been used for the betterment of society."

Now just look how far we have declined from that point since the 1960s. The common good has become the common rot.

[WestCoasterDude]

67. +1 +1

I didn't know that Bart Starr was such a smart guy!

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. I bet you do not even know that you only pay that rate IF you draw a salary making

$350,000 a year.....but guess what....even if you make 1 BILLION a year....you pay the same rate as the guy with $350,000....HOW on God's green earth do YOU think that is fair?

In 1951 the top tax rate was 91%...FACT! And what did rich people do to keep from giving all that money to the Govt? THEY INVESTED it into their companies...THUS creating jobs!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

76. Make it so PAYROLL is classified as a "cost of doing business" deduction and see salaries skyrocket.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

93. It already is

Payroll is a deductible expense, but higher salaries still result in lower profits.

Not saying that's a bad thing, just the way it is.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

118. One of the best kept secrets by Republicans is employers pay into Social Security too....

That's why Republicans want to ELIMINATE IT.

[on point]

77. Also restore equal treatment of Ordinary Income, Dividend, Capital gains tax rates so no games are played

These all used to be treated to the same tax rate regardless of source (capital gains had inflation rate deduction, keep that that).

Also need to do away with 'carried interest' game where wealthy speculators pay NO TAXES on billions of income.

I agree with you. Restore the Eisenhower tax rates.

[Prophet 451]

80. I think that's going too far

I would prefer not to raise income taxes above a top level of 50%, that seems fair to me.

[Zorra]

83. Yes. This is one possible way to wrest power from the 1%, and

create a system where there is economic justice and equality.

[kentuck]

86. That's really the only weapon the people have..

Other than outright revolution. The people must remain in power for a democracy to work. The inequality will eventually enslave us all.

[PumpkinAle]

105. If you find anyone that pays

anywhere near that 39% tax rate - they are either lying or their accountant is living a very high life.

Yes the tax system needs an overhaul - but saying that has hurt our country is disingenuous. What is hurting this country is greed..........

Seven of the 30 biggest U.S. corporations paid their chief executives more than they paid in federal income taxes last year, the liberal-leaning Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government found. Those seven firms collectively reported more than $74 billion in U.S. pretax profits, but received refunds of $1.9 billion from the IRS, thanks to tax breaks and loopholes, according to the groups. Their CEOs were paid an average of $17.3 million in 2013.

The findings come at a time when Congress is likely to renew or extend dozens of expired tax breaks, which corporations have been lobbying to get renewed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-companies-pay-ceos-more-than-uncle-sam/

[Thor_MN]

129. You are missing the point.

The idea of a high tax rate is not to take it from everyone. It is to create a disincentive from sticking the money in one's back pocket and plunking one's ass down on it. The economy grows by money moving around. Funneling into the hands of so few people that they couldn't possibly spend a small fraction of it is what is strangling the economy.

[TBF]

171. The greed is only encouraged

by capitalism. People are rewarded for being greedy under this economic system so that is how they behave. Change the system and perhaps you'll see a change in behavior.

[azureblue]

110. A few things

1 - put the tax rates for all, people and business, back to Eisenhower levels. That's sound "Republican" values.

2 - Tax stock market transactions. Even 1% per transaction per sale will generate huge income.

3 - repeal tax exemptions like the ones for the NFL, and close loopholes. Like for yachts and private jets.

4 - Tax companies who ship US jobs overseas, to the point of where the taxes will equate the lost wages in the US.

5 - Eliminate the Social Security ceiling that limits how much a person pays in vis a vis their income,, and change the law so the people who have enough money to retire with out drawing SS, will not get benefits unless their income falls beneath a certain level.

[kentuck]

125. The Democratic Party has been locked into supporting 39% as top tax rate for everyone....

...no matter under what circumstances, or wars, or reckless spending. We need to remove that ceiling in our Democratic platform, in my opinion, and return to a more progressive tax system.

[n2doc]

133. I think 39% is fine- but all income needs to be treated the same, at least

Tax Capital Gains, 'carried interest', etc. as income. There is no justification for favoring capital-sourced income over Labor-sourced income. At least, no justification that isn't completely self-serving bullshit.

[TheNutcracker]

134. I'm also against NAFTA.I'm also against the ending of Glass Steagal.I am also against war for profit

Just saying....

[taught_me_patience]

136. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your threshold of 70%

is higher than what you make. It's one thing to say you want a 70% tax rate and its entirely another to actually pay it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

140. Yeah

There comes a point when it's not worth the extra effort to make extra money if 50%+ is going to be paid in taxes. At that point, you're working for half pay.

[kentuck]

141. I like your name...

IYou don't seem to be as sick as your name would suggest??

[SickOfTheOnePct]

143. You're welcome to your opinion

Being sick of the 1% doesn't mean that I believe anyone should have to give up more than 50% of what they earn to income tax.

I wouldn't work for half pay - would you?

[kentuck]

149. Would I work for half pay?

Yeah, if I were working for 2 million dollars a year, would I quit my job if my pay was "only" a million dollars because of taxes?? I would gladly pay that rate.

[lancer78]

154. Exactly

If I offered to pay you $10,000,000 a year more then you are making now, but you only get $3,000,000 after taxes, what would you say? F you?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

172. Tax rates are marginal

So on a $2M income, you wouldn't pay 50%.

But say I'm making a million/year, and I have the chance to make another million by taking on more responsibility, more hours, more work. If the marginal rate on the 2nd million is 50%, I wouldn't do it, because for the additional work, hours and responsibility, I'm getting half pay. No thanks.

[hfojvt]

142. 90% seems a bit high

and also ambitious.

We apparently could barely sell Congress, and the public (which keeps electing Republicans who want to CUT the top tax rate) on a 39% rate.

I suggested, more modestly, two more brackets on the top.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

Okay, it was three, I remembered it wrong, and up to 65%.

But I like it, if you, and others, push for 90%, then 65% looks more like a reasonable "compromise".

[BKH70041]

155. Request Denied

[kentuck]

157. Support Denied.

Vote Denied.

[BKH70041]

160. Where is Tinsky, KY?

It doesn't show up on google maps.

BTW the right kind of support and votes is what is important. They aren't listening to you. That's not by accident.

Request Denied.

[kentuck]

164. I have no idea?

Perhaps it is misspelled?

[BKH70041]

166. It's on someone's profile at a website.

Candidate Profile from Congressional Quarterly
*** ****** (*)
Challenger
Born: August 2, 1947, Tinsky, Ky.
Education: Pikes Peak Community College, A.A., 1981; U. of Colorado, attended, 1989.
Military Service: Army, 1966-69.
Family: Wife, Shawn.
Political Career: No previous office.

Since I read your comments about KY prior to mid-terms and thought you might know. So if it's misspelled, what town might this individual be making reference?

[7962]

169. Born in '47, could be a small town that may no longer be around. nt

[Brigid]

159. Those numbers need to be reversed.