unofan
Well-known member
It's the admission price for living in a civilization.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
It's the admission price for living in a civilization.
And yet, for the most part, we didn't have/need an income tax until a century or so ago. Duties and excise taxes, sure. But confiscating personal income? Nada and they needed a constitutional amendment to do it.
Our federal government is notably inefficient. Give them $1, they'll spend $2. Give them $2, they'll spend $3. Toss in a foreign entanglement and spending goes though the roof. THAT'S when you need an income tax. Once the entanglement ends, abolish the tax.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
The vast majority of people living in dire poverty, and we didn't "need" an income tax until they had the vote and newspapers that espoused their views?
What an incredible coincidence!
The vast majority of people living in dire poverty, and we didn't "need" an income tax until they had the vote and newspapers that espoused their views?
What an incredible coincidence!
unofan
Well-known member
If you think that the standard of living in 19th century America was anywhere close to today's, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Another good consequence of low oil prices: the Saudis and Kuwaitis have taken it in the shorts.
Another good consequence of low oil prices: the Saudis and Kuwaitis have taken it in the shorts.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Good. I hate considering religious police states as "allies".
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
And yet who does the income tax target? Those you're trying to protect. The wealthy CEOs receive their "pay" in stock options and other not-yet-taxable instruments.
And yet who does the income tax target? Those you're trying to protect. The wealthy CEOs receive their "pay" in stock options and other not-yet-taxable instruments.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Oddly enough, that practice went into overdrive when Pres. Clinton signed into law a pay ceiling for CEOs, limiting how much cash they could be paid. Had he not done that, they would still receive more cash than stock, and the government would receive slightly more aggregated tax income.
Oddly enough, that practice went into overdrive when Pres. Clinton signed into law a pay ceiling for CEOs, limiting how much cash they could be paid. Had he not done that, they would still receive more cash than stock, and the government would receive slightly more aggregated tax income.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Reminds me a bit of FDR.
Is that law even still on the books, BTW? Sort of like how Dodd-Frank was amended so Congress could still do insider trading?
Also, I wonder how many of these CEOs have "charities", similar to the Clinton Foundation, from which they take salary?
Reminds me a bit of FDR.
Is that law even still on the books, BTW? Sort of like how Dodd-Frank was amended so Congress could still do insider trading?
Also, I wonder how many of these CEOs have "charities", similar to the Clinton Foundation, from which they take salary?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Yep, and we've been regretting it ever since as it incentifies CEOs to build up the shareprice and cash out, and the hell with the future.
Far better for options to be on a long time scale -- no cash out for, say, 25 years. Make the CEO build a company that will last.
Yep, and we've been regretting it ever since as it incentifies CEOs to build up the shareprice and cash out, and the hell with the future.
Far better for options to be on a long time scale -- no cash out for, say, 25 years. Make the CEO build a company that will last.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Not to mention the stock price jumps that come with merger announcements...
But I'm not sure the options would necessarily help. Take a look at what Mark Cuban did when Yahoo bought Broadcast.com... lots of puts to protect his money.
Not to mention the stock price jumps that come with merger announcements...
But I'm not sure the options would necessarily help. Take a look at what Mark Cuban did when Yahoo bought Broadcast.com... lots of puts to protect his money.
2017 is better than 1917 which was better than 1817 which was better than 1717, etc. Unless there's a plague, a collapse of civilization or a global catastrophe the standard of living will get better
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Actually, fallout from the Black Plague is what created the middle class in the first place. Labor became a premium, and the lords had little choice but to increase the pay of highly skilled serfs that eventually became the merchant class.
Actually, fallout from the Black Plague is what created the middle class in the first place. Labor became a premium, and the lords had little choice but to increase the pay of highly skilled serfs that eventually became the merchant class.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Not really a middle class, more of a first working class, as distinct from serfs who were essentially slaves.
The Middle Class was created when the Ruling Class figured out it needed healthy, educated and numerous citizens for industrialization and especially for industrialized warfare. That fueled the workers rights movements through the 19th century and then the populist movements, and finally the blossoming of the Middle Class in the 20th century.
Now that industrial labor has been superseded out by robotics, the Ruling Class no longer needs us, so we are gradually being reduced back to serfdom.
The only way anyone ever took power from the Ruling Class was coercion: either by the gun or because it was also in the cold equations of their economic necessity. The former is inherently stable, so the simplest and most effective method has always been the latter. But the problem with the latter is times change, and the fist is always there waiting to strike.
What conservatives have done for the last fifty years, some knowingly, many as dupes, is removed the chains we had briefly put on that fist, and removed our shields. They loathe democratic government because it protects everyone equally. They long for the freedom of wolves in the fold. That, for them, is "fairness."
Not really a middle class, more of a first working class, as distinct from serfs who were essentially slaves.
The Middle Class was created when the Ruling Class figured out it needed healthy, educated and numerous citizens for industrialization and especially for industrialized warfare. That fueled the workers rights movements through the 19th century and then the populist movements, and finally the blossoming of the Middle Class in the 20th century.
Now that industrial labor has been superseded out by robotics, the Ruling Class no longer needs us, so we are gradually being reduced back to serfdom.
The only way anyone ever took power from the Ruling Class was coercion: either by the gun or because it was also in the cold equations of their economic necessity. The former is inherently stable, so the simplest and most effective method has always been the latter. But the problem with the latter is times change, and the fist is always there waiting to strike.
What conservatives have done for the last fifty years, some knowingly, many as dupes, is removed the chains we had briefly put on that fist, and removed our shields. They loathe democratic government because it protects everyone equally. They long for the freedom of wolves in the fold. That, for them, is "fairness."
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Great growth you put out there, Obummer. I'm sure you're going to point the finger or resort to your fake news whine... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-historically-low-gdp-growth-rate-working-on/
Great growth you put out there, Obummer. I'm sure you're going to point the finger or resort to your fake news whine... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-historically-low-gdp-growth-rate-working-on/
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
He's the worst? Really? Anyone look at GW's numbers after the crash?
Another idiot article written by an idiot.
He's the worst? Really? Anyone look at GW's numbers after the crash?
Another idiot article written by an idiot.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Cries fake news, cites one of the least objective sites out there.
Cries fake news, cites one of the least objective sites out there.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I'd be curious too but invariable what happens is there ends up being no enforcement dollars in the budget and the loopholes are exploited and no one goes to jail.
I'd be curious too but invariable what happens is there ends up being no enforcement dollars in the budget and the loopholes are exploited and no one goes to jail.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
The man comes from Goldman Sachs, an institution that's intertwined with everything that Glass-Steagall forbade. Supporting GS would be to tear that company apart, create a lot of expenses in the process, and create what many would view as simple accounting trickery. Who will be the owners of the new companies if you split apart the banks? Well, it would be the people who own stock in the current banks that get split. It's the same net effect in ownership, only now you're paying the salaries of multiple boards, executive teams, etc. He would make some sort of economies of scale argument against the split.
The man comes from Goldman Sachs, an institution that's intertwined with everything that Glass-Steagall forbade. Supporting GS would be to tear that company apart, create a lot of expenses in the process, and create what many would view as simple accounting trickery. Who will be the owners of the new companies if you split apart the banks? Well, it would be the people who own stock in the current banks that get split. It's the same net effect in ownership, only now you're paying the salaries of multiple boards, executive teams, etc. He would make some sort of economies of scale argument against the split.
- Status