Obama Jobs Bill

[Lurker]

Shorter Embar: "I don't care what's in the Republican alternative and don't care if it helps with jobs or the economy or if it increases the deficit as long as the Republicans can exploit the policital opportunity."

[Embar Angylwrath]

Maybe you'd like to directly tackle the question I posed to Jaro.

How much of the 1% assets do you think the 99% are entitled to?

[Lurker]

Nice to see I was right when I posted this.

To answer your question, I don't think the 99% are "entitled" to anything. But the fact remains that wealth concentration is destroying our economy and Republican policies that favor the wealthy are proven failures. We need to continue the trend that Clinton started (and Bush reversed) and enact policies that help lift the middle class. Supply side is a failed ideology; like communism.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then what's your solution to the wage disparity? Keep in mind that you said the 99% aren't entitled to the assets the 1% have.

Also keep in mind that taxes are a redistribution of wealth, directly or indirectly. So taxing the 1% is taking their assets for "insert noble cause here". Be that roads, highways, or giving people a tax refund on taxes they never paid in the first place.

On that note.. are you in favor of keeping a tax policy that gives an income tax refund to people that never paid a dime in income tax? Do you see that as fair tax policy?

[Lurker]

I took issue with the word "entitled". That's all.

I still believe in a progressive tax system.

I still think that Republican efforts to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and towards the poor and middle class are wrong on every level.

I still think that solving our deficit problem through spending cuts alone is impossible, and that even if it wasn't impossible it would do incredible damage to the country. Millions of people would be hurt, our economy would suffer, and we'd forfit any chance we have of regaining our standing in the world. (and no, I'm not saying there isn't spending that can and should be cut, just that there isn't enough wasteful spending and there isn't political will on either side to cut it anyways.)

I still think that asking the wealthy to pay a little more is the right thing to do. The wealthy have enjoyed nearly all the benefit of economic growth for several decades while everyone else has been stagnant, and as a result our economy is suffering greatly.

We know what economic policies work. And Republican economic policy simply does not work.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok, maybe we're narrowing down on an answer.

You haven't refuted that taxing one portion of the population is a redistrubtion of wealth (direcctly or indrectly). So I ask you, how much of the 1% assets should be redistributed to others?

Can you answer that simple question?

[Lurker]

Why do you want to redistribute money from the poor and middle class towards the already wealthy?

[Ddrak]

For a weak party, they sure are driving the message and momentum in Washington.

The ax increases are the issue to the Republicans, who will slam the door shut on anything the has a whiff of a tax increase in it. I wasn't talking about polling numbers. If Obama really wants to put the Reps on the hotseat, he'll try to push a bill that has no tax increase in it at all, or any other type of revenue enhancer. Then dare the Reps to oppose it.

What the voting number of the Dems says is that some Dems are in too much of a vulnerable position in their election campaings to vote for a measure that has a tax increase in it. The Reps know this and will exploit the political opportunity. Who knows, they may even get an alternative bill passed this way if they can chip away enough Dems. They are clearly closer to that goal than the Dems are to chipping away a few Reps.

Perhaps "weak" was the wrong word. I meant more "brittle" or even "totalitarian". I don't think parties that act in lockstep represent their constituents, instead working towards the major interests of party heavyweights (ie money). It's much easier, however, for a party that acts in lockstep to drive a message because they can have a cohesive one that's unsullied by the differing needs of the people they are supposed to represent.

I don't think the GOP is a good party to uphold voter interests in the US, just as I don't think Labor is a good party in Australia and for the same reason. Then again, the Liberal Party over here are being idiots at the moment too. Hmm...

What I'm not sure of is your theory that voting for a tax increase is a bad thing if you're in a vulnerable position. To me it seems it would be a good thing and voting against it is more likely to lose the seat for you. You get far, far more votes sticking it to the rich than you lose. Any graph of income distribution easily shows that.


I'll give you an answer on "redistribution" - an economy should be set up to maintain the GINI coefficient at around 35 or less. This doesn't have to be direct distribution, in fact it shouldn't be - projects that are for the equal good of the entire population tend to get my vote in government.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Lurker/Jaro - knew you guys wouldn't touch that question, because it forces you to confront the fact that increasing taxes on a small segment of the population is taking their assets in order to give them to others. I didn't expect either of you to have the balls to define just how much of the 1% assets you want to take. I expected the snarky dodges.

@ Dd - If you look at the Dems that voted against Obama's proposal, you'll see that most hold seats in conservative leaning districts. Conservative leaning districts tend not to view tax increases favorably. That's a function of the mind of the general electorate, not monied interests.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Funny, I never said anything about taxing anyone more, and that need not have anything to do with efforts to reduce income disparity. Keep beating that straw man, though. It makes you look tough.

How much of the 95%'s income has the 5% (Because we're talking about income disparity here - not OWS's slogan) funneled into their own coffers in the last half century through widening disparity and the false claims that money trickles down? How much of that were the 5% "entitled" to? Why do you view any tax for any reason as a "redistribution" of wealth, and why do you cast it in a negative light? How do you expect a society to function without a government, and how do you expect a government to function without taxes?

[Embar Angylwrath]

As long as nothing illegal was done, the 5% are entitled to 100% of what they earned.

A tax (for any reason) IS a redistribution of wealth, if the tax code is progressive.

Ok, lets say I misunderstood your position. How do yu reduce income disparity without 1) taxing people, or 2) legislating income.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

As long as nothing illegal was done, the 5% are entitled to 100% of what they earned.

This doesn't answer the question, and can be flipped back on itself. So long as nothing illegal is done, the 95% are entitled to 100% of whatever they earn if income disparity is reduced (Even if taxation is used in the process).

A tax (for any reason) IS a redistribution of wealth, if the tax code is progressive.

What form of tax code would keep taxes from being a "redistribution" in your opinion? Are taxes that pay for infrastructure and funding government a "redistribution?" Why or why not? And why do you view this negatively?

Ok, lets say I misunderstood your position. How do yu reduce income disparity without 1) taxing people, or 2) legislating income.

I don't know. I'm neither economist nor politician.

[Lurker]

Ok, lets say I misunderstood your position. How do yu reduce income disparity without 1) taxing people, or 2) legislating income.

For starters, we could not enact a moronic half-baked tax scheme that provides an enormous windfall for the already wealthy while eviscerating federal revenues to the point where we have ballooning deficits and the elimination of federal programs that benefit the poor and middle class.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok, so thats what you can't do, Lurker. What CAN you do? How would you address income disparity?

@ Jaro - Yes, the 99% are entitled to what they earn (taxation included, and I meant to put that in my post, thanks for mentioning it), and reduction of income disaprity is irrelevant to that.

A tax code that taxes everyone equally would not be a restribution of wealth. It would be a participation in the government finance porportional to an individuals income. Admittedly, that's a completely unworkable plan. So any form of progessive taxation is always going to be a redistribution of wealth. Just seems seems top me that whenever the government wants more money, the Dems instinctively look towards the far end of income spectrum as their funding solution. They want to redictribute more and more of that portion of hte populations wealth.

Your last response was a cop out. Surely you can come up with one or two ideas on how to reduce income disparity.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Just seems seems top me that whenever the government wants more money, the Dems instinctively look towards the far end of income spectrum as their funding solution.

Given the fact that the top earners are the only ones who've seen any actual income growth and the middle- and lower-classes have seed negative growth, there really aren't any other options. Are you familiar with the saying "you can't get blood from a turnip?"

Additionally, it's simple reality that trickle down economics doesn't work. Money flows in all directions, and it trickles up a hell of a lot faster than down. How would you suggest we tweak the economic model to compensate?

They want to redictribute more and more of that portion of hte populations wealth.

Hardly "redistribution." Without government, infrastructure and laborers, it is impossible for "that portion of the population" to accumulate wealth. It is expected and necessary that an individual who is successful within the system to pay back into the system that allowed them to succeed. More success equates more responsibility to the society that created the success story.

Your last response was a cop out. Surely you can come up with one or two ideas on how to reduce income disparity.

Incentives for low disparity. Again, I don't really know how to do this. Perhaps (After cleaning up and streamlining the tax code in general) tax breaks for companies with low disparity - say very low taxes levied against companies with 50:1 disparities and 400:1 disparities falling at the high end of taxation. Perhaps increase minimum wage to an actual living wage. Again, I don't know. What are your ideas for reigning in disparity (I know, you probably don't care. Indulge me)?

[Kulaf]

Ok, so thats what you can't do, Lurker. What CAN you do? How would you address income disparity?

@ Jaro - Yes, the 99% are entitled to what they earn (taxation included, and I meant to put that in my post, thanks for mentioning it), and reduction of income disaprity is irrelevant to that.

A tax code that taxes everyone equally would not be a restribution of wealth. It would be a participation in the government finance porportional to an individuals income. Admittedly, that's a completely unworkable plan. So any form of progessive taxation is always going to be a redistribution of wealth. Just seems seems top me that whenever the government wants more money, the Dems instinctively look towards the far end of income spectrum as their funding solution. They want to redictribute more and more of that portion of hte populations wealth.

Your last response was a cop out. Surely you can come up with one or two ideas on how to reduce income disparity.

I think the only way to address it is through some legislative oversight unfortunatly. There seems to be a paradigm shift going on in American business. There used to be equal consideration to a three part split between shareholders, the company and the employees in this country, and now the only focus seems to be on the shareholders. Very few companies it seems want to work hard and become the new Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, etc........all they want is to sell themselves off and make fat cash for the shareholders. I don't see this trend correcting itself on its own without some painful prodding from the government in the form of windfall capital gains penalties, or some other instrument which discourages the quick easy sale of companies. It should be something that companies do, but only when it benefits all stakeholders in the company.

I would also encourage passage of what I would call the "Ben & Jerry's Initiative". In case you are unaware, Ben & Jerry's as a company had a 7 to 1 cap on salaries. Basically this means that the highest paid employee in the company could only receive a maximum of 7 times the pay of the lowest paid person in the company. While they have since abandoned that scale due to being unable to attract a CEO, I think some sort of national cap would correct that issue. The goal would be to lift the pay of all employees in a company as the highest paid sought to increase their own pay. I think this could be accomplished by offering significant tax advantages to companies that would adopt this plan. Basically it would be so good that their own shareholders would demand that the board adopt the new structure and adjust accordingly.

[Embar Angylwrath]

That solution, Kulaf, guarantees a hyper-inflationary spike. Significanly increasing incomes of the mass consumers in this country will drive price hikes in just about everything. The only winner in that scenario is China. With more liquid capital, people (who have shown a willingness to spend but not save) will pay more for goods. The ice of those goods will go up, and viola, we're right back in the same mess we have, except that the wealth of the country will be with China and the rest of the net importing nations. (Oh, and our net exports will go down under that scenario as well, further jacking our trade imbalances. I do agree, however, that the collective corporate philosophy is much as you described it. It's all shareholder driven now.

[Kulaf]

You are assuming a rapid rise in wages. I am assuming the exact opposite. The people who make the most in the companies would take rather large cuts in pay. Yes there would be some movement up from the bottom, but I don't envision that having any major shift in inflation. And at a time when we are flirting with deflation, which is even worse, a little upward pressure would be a good thing.

[Ddrak]

@ Dd - If you look at the Dems that voted against Obama's proposal, you'll see that most hold seats in conservative leaning districts. Conservative leaning districts tend not to view tax increases favorably. That's a function of the mind of the general electorate, not monied interests.

I'm not convinced. I really don't see independents voting against a tax rise for the ultra-high end, and Dems are hardly going for hardcore GOP votes. If they voted against Obama's proposal then I'm going to suggest it was something other than taxes they were objecting to. Can't prove it worth a damn though.

CEOs are massively overpaid and I think ridiculously overvalued by boards of directors. I'd imagine you'd have about the same luck with finding a good one that suits your company at the $500k-$1m mark as you have at the $30m+ mark. I think 7:1 is a little tight, but 50:1 shouldn't be out of the question. Beyond 100:1 is (in my opinion) wasting money. I know my company is just over 4:1 but we're only 100 people.

The whole entitlement thing is interesting. There's been an unquestionable redistribution of wealth in the US towards a smaller group of people. Did that small group *really* work harder than the rest, or did they use their existing wealth to take advantage of the rest. I believe the majority of the ultra-wealthy fall into the latter category, so the question of their entitlement to that redistribution is certainly not black and white. How much of that money they feel entitled to is really a function of the well structured and law-abiding society and commercial framework? Therefore, how much of that money is really owed to society and not the individuals?

It's interesting, when you start talking about entitlements - who really *is* entitled to "money"?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I agree that CEOs are overpaid. But then again, until there is a concerted effort on the part of Boards to reduce CEO pay, that's what the CEO market will bear. And if you could get a good CEO for $500-1$ million, Ben and Jerry's wouldnt have abanonded its CEO pay cap policy. Whole Foods wouldn't have had to keep upping its ratio of top pay to bottom pay. Herman Miller wouldn't have had to eliminate its CEO salary cap. CEOs are like other employees for the most part. They go where they get the best package, and the best packages attract the best talent. This is even considering that the above mentioned companies ostensibly attract more "socially conscious" top management.