How interesting. I wonder how this happened. Oh. That's right. Fuckwits like Merc let it happen, while they were amusing themselves arguing over Punch and Judy dolls on internet forums. Good job, asshat.

You should probably drink less. Don't you know it limits reaction times?

Obama will own your bank.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/...22regulate.php

Oh, and we're back to "lol obama."

Great.

I ALMOST ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE BANK.

forget about it :)

I will if you will.

well BDS - you've made quite a contribution since coming to the cellar. Welcome.

I try. And thanks. :)

My ignore list grows.

knock knock - your sarcasm meter broken?

Oh and by the way, Merc & BDS - If you don't set your usertitle, it changes with every post up to a certain number. So you were both wrong. See you DO have something in common. lol

Ah. So you're one of them then.


And Classicman, I did say I thought it did it automatically. :P

No that was sir simplesomething OH I see you are he and he you. Another sockpuppet -
So you're one of them then.


BUSTED!

:D

Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Bonus Amendment (Update2)

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

http://www.bloomberg.com

Incorrect. I indeed was Sir_Simpletoon, from when I came over from the Safari. I thought I'd pop in tonight, attempted to register BDS, as I'd forgotten the password to Sir_Simpletoon.
Of course, in your great and wise benevolence, this forum is based on an activation system, thus meaning I couldn't post. So, I put more effort into finding the pass for Sir_Simpletoon, which lo and behold, I cracked.
But then, when this accout was activated, I switched back to here.

Would you like to many any more assumptions, while you're at it? Maybe I'm secretly a lizard overlord. Or maybe I'm actually seven people, each behind a different proxy.

Jesus fucking Christ you're an idiot.

Uh, I was just bustin your chops - sheesh.
Dish it out, but can't take it much? WTF?

Hey, I can take it.
I just like to respond with... Shall we say, a more aggresive tactic than Merc?

Oh, you mean being a bigger asshole? It showed.

Why should Merc have all the fun?

Sorry. I didn't realize you were a pansy.

'This country will go bankrupt'
 

Link

I wonder if tw's buddy told him what to think and say too.

:rolleyes: WHO ELSE is doing that? You are one of the ones whining about gun rights being taken away by the Obama administration. I have heard nothing in the news about car dealerships or big houses being burned down.

Yes, I am. But we have had this discussion already, and I'm not going to rehash it.

I am not an ecoterrorist.

This only covers banks getting TARP funds, and only until they pay back the money. Why should that bother you? After that, they can go back to their old behavior. Which sucks. We NEED pay reform in this country.

Pay reform? Is that code for we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?

The companies that took the government money are pretty screwed and will have to play by the rules but well run companies who are able to stand and succeed on their own should not have any input at all from the government on pay beyond the legal minimum wage guidelines.

Agreed. Pay reform through government regulation is a stretch.

However, I do think publicly traded companies should be required by regulation to fully disclose executive compensation (salaries, bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, etc) to stockholders with those stockholders having greater authority to deny or adjust such compensation.

I agree with you on that Redux. Greater disclosure would be a positive as it would help shareholders know exactly what is happening inside their investment.

What, like "the power to ruin the banking system with irresponsible bonuses and practices"?

No, it is not code for that. I am saying that, over the past 30 years or so the tax codes have increasingly favored the rich, and not only that, executive pay has gone through the stratosphere while the average workers wages have stagnated severely, plus they have been losing benefits. Capitalism NEEDS checks and balances, and we haven't had any for a very, very long time. Over the past 30 years, the difference between a CEOs pay and the average worker has grown from 30 times more, to about 500 times more. While executive pay has ballooned, middle class wages have not kept up with inflation. If they had, we wouldn't need so many government programs, and people wouldn't be so far in debt. Don't you GET IT?

Minimum wage is a fucking JOKE. Who can live off of that? And you know most other wages for the middle class and working class are based on minimum wage standards, NOT what is fair or how hard the job is or how hard the person works or how valuable they are to the company or the economy, or how profitable the company is. ALL jobs are important. ALL work is important. I'm sick of executives and business graduates thinking they are so much more valuable than everyone else, because they aren't. Without many of the "lower class" or "less valuable" jobs, this country would come to a screeching halt.

None of that matters if the top percent pay the majority of taxes.

Of course it matters, if the other 99% can't afford to buy products produced by industry.

I adore you Merc, but you really are clueless about this particular issue.

Sugarpop<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<issue>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Merc

You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.

How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.

How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.

How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.

How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.

How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.

How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.

The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.

And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.

That was a great post, cous. :) Good points.

If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour you will be bagging your own groceries. Back in the day when the minimum wage was fought to be liveable, every increase matched an increase in unemployment, one to one.

I agree with you to a point (I know, that's a surprise:P). In fact I agree with you entirely right up until your final point. The minimum wage should be livable. It shouldn't be enough to pay for two holidays abroad every year and a brand new car; but it should pay enough to put food on your family's table and keep your kids well shod. It should be enough that people don't have to work two jobs and never see their kids just to make ends meet. That doesn't breed happy families. Make the mimium wage a dignified amount. The rest may get paid more, and that's fine,. They can take their holidays and buy their kids a great computer at Christmas.

Not really. The facts are quite clear. A minority of income earners pay the majority of income tax.

Top income earners (top 2 percent) definitely pay the greatest share of the total federal income taxes (as they should, IMO), but its no where near paying the majority of total federal income taxes (over 50% of the total). Its true the top half of income earners probably pay more than 90% of the total.

Those same top income earners (the top 2%) also consistently see the greatest percentage rise in their income on an annual basis.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Right
The greatest share but not a majority. (I thought it was under 33% -a third of the total, but I wont quibble with the tax foundation)

And the income for the top 1 percent consistently increases on an annual basis at a greater rate than any other income bracket.

Since I am not in the top one percent it does not bother me so much. This is a country made up of a stratified group of income earners. A mega Bell Curve. There will always be a minority that make a bunch and a minorty that are very poor. The problems comes in when a very small percent pay the majority of income taxes, as my link documents, and the majority think that top percent that pay the majority of all income taxes should pay more, while they continue to pay the same, less, or nothing. They need to buy more helmets.

Thats how a progressive income tax works.....and the way its been in the US for 80+ years,....the highest income earners, with a greater ability to pay (disposal income), pay a higher share....and lower income earners who rely solely on their income to meet basic necessities....pay a lower share.

It needs to be changed.

Why?

Has the progressive income tax stifled or adversely impacted economic growth over the last 80+ years? (no evidence to suggest that)

Has it discouraged people from working harder to make more money and move up to a higher tax bracket (no evidence to suggest that either..in fact, the number of millionaires and billionaires continues to grow)

Are the top 1-2% of income earners objecting in great numbers that they pay too much? (not that I have read or heard).

What it really comes down to is the question of if a progressive income tax is inherently unfair?

Thats a matter of opinion on which we obviously disagree, but which every president and Congress (and overwhelming majority of the public) for the last 80+ years are in agreement, with the only differences being the question of rates...how much more should people pay as their income rises.

Because:

So you dont really have any evidence that it adversely impacts economic growth or is a disincentive for people to aspire to greater income and wealth.

You just think its inherently unfair?

OK.

Any progressive tax is unfair. Income or otherwise. It adversely affects economic growth because if everyone pays the same, with a few exceptions, and you eliminate many of the loop holes, we could significantly receive more collected taxes. And that would be an opportunity for economic growth.

I support a flat tax as I've described it in the past but I know that won't happen because it cuts into too many empires. My only major complaint with current tax rates comes mainly when I hear people earning under $40K/year who are already paying relatively little bitch about how someone else should pay more so they can pay less.

cite please....from an objective source.

It was that wild and crazy socialist, wealth redistributor Ronald Reagan who expanded the earned income tax credit!

I agree those earning under $40K got a pretty good deal.

There is no such thing as an objective source these days when it comes to a controversial issue, esp one as hot as taxation. You obviously support a progressive tax. I support a consumption tax. For every opinion that supports progressive taxation there are opinions that support a consumption tax.

I would close this discussion with the fact that I share the views of The Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22562.html

According to this economics professor at Princeton, simply a 5% increase in the form of a consumption tax would raise $500billion a year.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...odays-economy/

More than enough to deal with many of our problems in a few short years.

$500 billion would barely cover the annual interest on the US national debt.

Tell it to Obama and the Dems in Congress.

Which is why it should be 23% IMHO and not 5%.

LOL....it took awhile for you to blame Obama and the Dems in Congress.

The fact remains that every president and Congress, Dems and Repubs alike, for the last 80+ years has supported a system of progressive taxation rather than a flat consumption tax.

Not when you compare the national debt and the way money is being spent by Congress in the last three months.

You would also recieve more collected taxes if you have a progressive tax and you eliminate many of the loop holes.

Just like you can lose weight if you eat my new herbal supplement and exercise more.

Maybe, but I wouldn't participate in either of your schemes to make you more money.