Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Jonathan-1917156's column >>

JONATHAN-1917156

Articles Posted: 32  Links Seeded: 7
Member Since: 6/2010  Last Seen: 5/18/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The economy is growing ... but are we out of the woods yet?

Sun Jan 8, 2012 8:40 PM EST
not-news, economy, jobs, opinion, economic-growth
By Jonathan-1917156
Advertise | AdChoices

With the recent news that the unemployment rate ticked down and that hiring for a month was reasonably healthy, we have gotten an enormous amount of boasting from both sides as to who is responsible for it, and that it alone is a sign that everything is all better now. To me however, it is just another indication of how short term thinking we have become. That isn't to say that the news itself is bad, it isn't, but quite frankly it ignores the more serious problems that we face which are much more structural in nature, and we, as a society, haven't even addressed these problems and we really need to start addressing these issues.

Some may think that this is a party issue, and it isn't NEITHER party really seems equipped either policy wise or attitude wise to start the transformation that we need, with the Democrats being more interested in trying to bring us back into the 70's, with more 'spending' that seems to be a bandaid (payroll tax cut, extend unemployment benefits) and the Republicans even more devoutly interested in spending that follows the pattern that got us into this mess in the first place, with the obvious result that we are going to be further into the hole at the end. WIth both parties, we can describe it as insanity, you know the definition that says insanity is doing something over and over again with the expectation that the result will change. Our government, in its attempt to constantly appease short term 'feel good' desires, whether that desire be social program, new military adventure, the desire to split us all apart, has sacrificed our future. 

Where am I coming from in this? Well our biggest problem is that as a nation, we seem to be totally focussed on the amount of money we make, instead of the amount of money we CAN make. We continue to make the short term and short sighted decisions that have brought us down this path of economic ruin. Can we get out of it? Who knows. Right now, it doesn't look good. Of particular not, it is really sad that when I go over the math/economics of the problem with the structure of the taxes and how it is doing more harm than good (I refer to my particular pet peeve, capital gains taxes and how having them lower than income taxes with the reality that low capital gains taxes does NOTHING to create jobs or improve our economy's ability to create wealth), and the response is more often than not 'I don't care if what I want does long term damage, I will have an opinion then' or something to that effect. 

The problems we are facing are the result of a lack of longer term thinking over the last 30 years, creating a boom & bust cycle that we have been able to largely get around by effective use of monetary policy. While I personally believe that the monetary system we have now is largely workable, one of the things that it does do is to create the impression that we can stop the running of our economy with prudent economic and industrial policies, and instead deal with everything as it comes. Here are the highlights of this insanity, chronologically :

We start with the leveraged buyout frenzy where conglomerates are bought up and gutted, to be pieced off to the highest bidder. The only real beneficiary being the short term profits for the financiers (I won't call them investors because they aren't). Connected to this was a bubble that was created by leveraging these transactions within mature industries with very low growth potential using junk bonds which pretty much guaranties failure because the carrying costs are higher than the ability of the business to pay for. To my national shame (me being a Canadian), I point out two prominent exhibits to this, though they aren't alone, Campeau and the Reichmanns, both of them taking two well established real estate companies and burning them into the ground with ill fated, and most importantly ill advised business transactions. 

Then, after the dust settles, we migrate into the dot coms, where the idea of a business plan is to make the statement, we are going to build a company that generates no income and then sell it so we can make it big (now THAT is insanity, though I am not sure who is more insane, the idiots doing the selling or the buying), and with it, we have yet another proud Canadian company being run into the ground by it, NORTEL, though many others carry the same fate, SUN never having really recovered from it, though in the case of NORTEL, even though it was a Canadian company, it had LONG been infiltrated and put on the path to destruction by an insistence that American management was better than Canadian management, so that little bit of insanity is shared. The fundamental problem here was that instead of actual investment in technologies to create more wealth, money was spent, and destroyed on nothing of value. 

Then we come to the latest debacle, people again thinking that real estate is the sure thing, so we create yet another bubble by pushing people to keep up with the jones by 'utilizing our new found asset value in our homes' by mortgaging ourselves to the hilt, with the BIGGEST difference with this latest bubble is that for the first time in the last 30 years of bubble gum economics (hmmm maybe I should push that as a new term to replace voodoo economics) is that this particular bubble has seriously affected EVERYONE.

We have pretty much hit our limit now, and we are seeing the result of it, with consumers too indebted to drive us out of this, business knowing that consumer spending growth is going to be limited so they don't invest, and everybody bitching to high hell when the government tries to spend. WOW, this one is going to be easy. 

Now we get to the part of how to get ourselves out of this mess. Well, that is obviously much easier said than done. Whining and bitching at each other passing libtard & rethuglican insults at each other, while it may be considered fun, stress relief, or justified, doesn't get to the problem. We have a sick economy, an economy that right now is not really able to contribute to the creation of wealth (and I don't mean money, I mean valuable assets that can create money, not just money). We need to get the 'short sighted' crap out of the discussion because if we don't, in a generation we will be like Rome. It took Rome more than 400 years to become nothing, we are WELL ahead of that right now.

Lets put aside our differences and start to come up with idea's and solutions to solve our problems instead of dicking about with the political bull@!$%# (and most of it really is bull@!$%#) and start thinking about the future. 

And that my friends is Jonathan's rant for the week. 

 

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jonathan-1917156's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (177)
Jonathan-1917156

Before people wonder, I DELIBERATELY decided NOT to post ideas on how to reverse the decline because that just opens up a divisive conversation, but please feel free to post ideas, but please mind the CoH

Thank you

  • 5 votes
#1 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 8:41 PM EST
mstanley2265

It fairly well sums it up...what most people that know....know

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:49 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

I just wish that people would start the dialog in this direction though, instead of political party bickering. I mean, it's not like the two parties are all that different (well lets ignore the religious extremists in the republican party lol).

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:07 PM EST
mstanley2265

Sadly, that's Why Congressional people are elected....to reach a consenses for the whole nation, like I've said many a time since 2010 when I saw the First legislation posted Jan 2010, at TLCongress, this would be and turned out is, the worst Congress in US history.

IMO that we'll have to wait until Jan 2013 to see any effective legislation come out of DC. It has been the biggest waste of taxpayer money paying those yahoo's and the pensions they'll get to do a job. More like some CEO with a golden parachute that runs a company in the ground and then walks away with millions. It's what they're going to do too. Walk away and make a mint for ruining progress.

  • 6 votes
#1.3 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:48 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

I am not really all that hopeful then either. To me the problem is with both parties, with the republicans being just plain insane, but the democrats are still pretty useless.

I see NO policy initiatives that would lead me to think that anything would be better. It is all band-aid solutions that will not really fix the problems. This is where I see disappointment in the Obama administration. It is all about short term fixes (even the proposed jobs bill is short term) which is fine if this were just a cyclical recession, but this is FAR more than that unfortunately, and we need to start addressing the issues that led to this. Knowing that the GOP is going to reject it, we should STILL be seeing policy proposals to address these problems.

But hey, at least they aren't trying to make the drainhole larger.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:20 PM EST
mstanley2265

The main problem rests in the States were these bozo's came from...Number One is Closed Primaries..that started a whole slew of problems. Number Two is the lack of the State parties in their selection process and/or final candidate.

They have had a Free Ride for the last 20 years on sending viable candidates to Congress, they have allowed elected candidates to Stay in Congress and not retire them by not backing them...So, the National Committee parties shouldn't shoulder as much responsibility as the States should.

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:00 AM EST
renee219-2390107

And that my friends is Jonathan's rant for the week.

And a justifiable rant at that:o)

Your right to ask to keep political parties out of the discussion because frankly neither party is really offering real solutions. When Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008 one of the features of his campaign was renewable energy and a push for the US to be on the leading edge of this technology. He spoke of funding and supporting research to that effect, infrastructure investments which would reduce US dependency on fossil fuels as well as produce jobs in a failing economy.

Sadly he and the rest of the Washington crew have "dropped the ball" and not moved forward with what IMO is a crucial step forward for the US. This would create the money making assets you spoke of, it would enhance national security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from volitile Middle Eastern sources. It would also help in the short term economic picture by providing much needed jobs and increasing the flow of cash into the current economy which in turn increases the government cash flow in terms of increased revenues as well. I can only see positive outcomes from such a plan.

I personally would also like to see some major changes in the trade laws. Laws requiring countries who wish to import into the US to meet environmental and labor (living wage) regulations in order to be able to sell here. We do it with things like safety and emissions I see no reason why other criteria couldn't be imposed and quite frankly should be. The US should not be supporting third world countries abuse of the environment or their labor force.

So there is a mini rant for you from me!:o)

  • 7 votes
#1.6 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:32 AM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Hmm so honest question here, how does one drive traffic to an article lol.

  • 4 votes
#1.7 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:35 PM EST
MJL-3

I would like to see the Employer/Employee tax cuts for the next year

I would like to see the infastructure going

I would like to see the AMTRAC rail go,

All those jobs, I think it would really boost our economy. Then Biger companies might start to hire, they want to keep their bonus's so they wont do anything.

It is the small companies that really fuel the economy,

But what the hell do I know.

  • 6 votes
#1.8 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:50 PM EST
mstanley2265

More than some Congressional and State legislators, that's for sure lol

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:53 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

MJL

But all of those are just short term band-aid fixes. They feel good, but once you take them away, you are back trying to deal with the same problem. This is very similar to the problem the auto companies have with their sales rebates. The customer base has gotten so used to them now that the big 3 have a hard time trying to get rid of them.

What we need are changes that will make those band aid fixes no longer necessary, and that WILL require large businesses. The small companies may look like they are driving the economy, but it is really the large companies that are creating the wealth that let the small companies create the movement. It requires both to be on sync. Unfortunately with large companies, they are better equipped to move overseas, but that is where we need changes in the tax code that discourage that type of behaviour.

mstanley

It is unfortunate that the political realm has just become 'one side bickering about the other side and vice versa' instead of trying to fix the problems. Sad really.

Personally I would love to hire lots of people, but I just don't see the justification for it from a 'by business has to survive' viewpoint. Nothing is happening that is going to change that view right now. THIS is what I would like to see changed (and no, more tax cuts is not what I want to see, that would actually probably get me to lay off workers to be honest).

  • 7 votes
#1.10 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:00 PM EST
MJL-3

Well I thought they should have given the stimulous to the People, like $100,000 to each tax payer.

That money could have been invested, bought home, cars, etc, ya short fix, but I would have had a blast, I actually would have started my own company, but I can't now.

  • 4 votes
#1.11 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:02 PM EST
mstanley2265

Big business is a problem, several in coffee, fish and lumber (small business) are having all sorts of problems staying floating. It's like Big Business wants to devour the small business's. And then they don't Give Back to the US but go for more and more 'exemptions' on their taxes. They can afford the lobbyists.

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:04 PM EST
MJL-3

There should not be outsourcing the scale it is now.

Lobbyists are definately an issue.

  • 6 votes
#1.13 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:05 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

I'm not sure if giving everyone 100K is a smart thing to do. If you put 10K in my pocket, it is gone, doing that with 100K across the board to every person would be just all that money gone, probably in the hands of the 1%'rs. Now I wouldn't be adverse to interest free loans to people that have solid business plans etc... but that wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

What I am more talking about though is something that I see. I am not sure that even if we stay in the current industry that most of my business is in (the auto industry) that there will be a viable business in 10 or 20 years. We need those businesses that create the wealth in order for the smaller and medium sized businesses to move it around.

Now one thing I didn't mention in my 'rant' is WHY we are seeing these repeated bubbles, and from what I can tell, we are experiencing it because alas, there isn't anything else to invest it in. If there were other opportunities out there, then people would be investing in those companies/industries. Instead, people invest it in something (mortgages) that has no wealth generating ability (the land doesn't grow, nor does it shrink, it doesn't get consumed etc...). With everything going in that direction, it creates a huge bubble, that affects us all.

mstanley.

I am not sure if it is big business itself or just the attitudes that we promote. We now have this attitude in the financial industry that a company must be 'growing' even if only on paper, so it tends these days to be very bandwagonish. The other side is that people are assuming that the people running the small businesses would be acting any different if they were running that big business.

hmmm maybe I should invest in political sniping derivatives. hahahaha

  • 6 votes
#1.14 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:26 PM EST
mstanley2265

Dang, Jonathan, you know there'd be people silly enough that'd invest in PSD's...lol

  • 2 votes
#1.15 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:29 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Yeah It is Perpetually Stupid Dingbats that would invest in Political Sniping Derivatives with the end result being Poverty Sustaining Dealings.

  • 4 votes
#1.16 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:32 PM EST
mstanley2265

ROFLOL, for an engineer, you've got a Great sense of humor and take on people being easily parted from their money. :)

  • 4 votes
#1.17 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:35 PM EST
MJL-3

Jonathan,

I'm not sure if giving everyone 100K is a smart thing to do.

I like to try :)

  • 4 votes
#1.18 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:38 PM EST
mstanley2265

Oh my goodness....ROFLOL

  • 3 votes
#1.19 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:39 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

mstanley

working in the financial industry for more than a decade sort of gives you that cynical take on people being easilly parted from their money. That is why my money is in 'my own' hedge fund lol. Hell, if I can't trust myself, who can I trust lol.

MJL

Overall, I think my motivation has always been about not the money we can get, but the what can we do to have us be able to make money 20 years down the road, the future. I really don't care what my profit is this year, especially in an economic downturn. But unfortunately I think that has become our central focus, what can I get now, not what can I build towards. Frustrating.

  • 6 votes
#1.20 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:42 PM EST
gmross

I'll take it MJL. :-)

  • 3 votes
#1.21 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:42 PM EST
MJL-3

gmross

I would NEVER turn down money :)

  • 2 votes
#1.22 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:43 PM EST
mstanley2265

First our Jonathan, and now Spike...I've got tears from laughing...geez

  • 3 votes
#1.23 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:45 PM EST
Alex. CA

We need to give 9 thousand dollars tax credits to companies hiring new employees. International trade related companies will hit home runs with these tax credits and create a huge trade surplus.

  • 2 votes
#1.24 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:05 AM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Don't think the US has had a trade surplus in more than 40 years lol.

9000 wouldn't make me hire though

  • 2 votes
#1.25 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:20 AM EST
mstanley2265

1975 was the last year for a US trade surplus. Lots of factors make up whether it's a trade surplus or deficit. More than I have ever figured out. sighhh

  • 3 votes
#1.26 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:25 AM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Well it't manufacturing only, and that may have just been because the domestic economy was so bad that exports overtook imports. How many months was it (I only ask because I assume you looked it up lol).

  • 3 votes
#1.27 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:34 AM EST
Seriously? No...Really?!

Great writeup Jonathan! Agreed wholeheartedly

Here are my primary items that I think should help get the ball rolling in the right direction

  1. Adjust the tax code: right now, it's ridiculous that direct income is taxed so much higher than indirect income (such as capital gains and dividends). Let's reverse this and switch the graduated tax to apply to capital gains as much as it does to income. If your capital gains exceed more than $N then you pay 25% instead of 15% and so on.
  2. Remove major tax loopholes: Just as importantly, corporations abusing transfer pricing (MS and Google) and engineering paper-losses (GE Capital) to skirt paying US income tax. In that respect, I'd suggest raising the standards for what can qualify for transfer pricing arrangements. Additionally, all liquid assets under constructive control must be reported by a publically traded company, and it must be reported net of all encumbrances...this would take care of all of the trillions in offshore Cayman and Swiss bank accounts that magically appear from the ether to buy up GE's, Apple's, Intel's, HP's shares when there's a dip. Lastly, the US needs to no longer allow a company to deduct any and all expenses associated with outsourcing production from their taxable income, this will also include H1B Visa'd workers.
  3. Adjust US Trade Policy: The US needs to restrict all trade with nations that utilize child labor and or do not follow at least the same standards of worker safety and welfare as the US.
  4. Adjust US Monetary Policy: The Fed needs to raise the Fed Rate to at least match inflation (actual inflation, the one that goes by drop in PPP and rise in CPI). This will bring wealth back into the pockets of those whom are savers, it will also slow down the rate of new bubbles forming as well as put a big roadblock in front of the primary means that China uses to peg their currency below the USD. Best of all is that it will make banks compete for deposits to maintain liquidity and get them out of the markets and back to lending for their primary source(s) of income.
  5. Change campaign finance restrictions: Citizens United was just the tip of the iceberg. It needs to be illegal for a for-profit corporation to contribute in any manner to a political campaign. Its employees and executives may do so, but the wealth of the company itself cannot, be it directly or indirectly. Additionally, PAC's status needs to be revised. All donation to political activity needs to be completely public when the funds are donated and no one but the politicians' funds should be allowed to go towards ads and other political messaging.
  6. Require the all elected officials but abide by the same conflicts of interest disclosures and restrictions, Corrupt Practices Acts, etc. as the rest of the country does: In business, if one acts on a conflict of interest, they open themselves to litigation by any damaged party, including their own employer! Additionally, private enterprise needs to be very careful about not influencing foreign politicians to gain favor. I want our politicians to be so concerned about even appearing influenced that they will consult their lawyers before even letting a lobbyist buy them lunch!

There's plenty more, but these are my favs! Thoughts anyone?

  • 3 votes
#1.28 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 4:10 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

The article was supposed to be more about the difference between having a vision, and just slapping together short term changes, which is why in the article itself, I left out policy, but was just looking for a vision. This is what seems to be missing to me.

As to your points:

1) I think capital gains should be taxed as direct income (though the payroll tax would still not be levied on it, but you wouldn't get SS benefits on that CG income either). Dividend income is something more complicated, as some of the comments indicate, because of the 'double taxed' nature of it, but overall, it is dividend income that we should be encouraging, because in general, it is longer term in nature, whereas CG is largely point in time in nature.

2) Transfer pricing is a complex issue, and when it comes to the example that I usually refer to, GE with jet engines, if they were to sell the jet engine directly, then the IRS has specific rules as to how the transfer pricing is to be accounted for in the books. The difference with GE though is that it has its huge financial arm, and those rules no longer apply because the engine isn't actually being sold, it is being leased, and therefore the product is a product with no nominal cost (which is what the IRS rules are based on), the lease. The product is no longer the jet engine. This is where the IRS rules fail. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to work around the rules themselves. The ONLY thing that I can think of is to levy income tax on the foreign income that has yet to be patriated.

This is extremely important to myself because what GE does lowers their tax liability, but it increases MY company's because now my company, which can't do the same tricks, must now make up the difference in taxes. It is extremely unfair.

I don't have an issue with H1B workers to be honest, they are an employee per the IRS (the H1B is just a visa, and it would impact me, because I am also on an employment visa, an E visa in my case), and the money earned by the H1B employee's does end up back in the economy. I do think that overall we need to be really careful about that, because it may end up doing more damage than good.

3) This gets into other issues of national sovereignty, though with child labor, I believe that there is an international treaty that should provide the standards. Again, any steps need to be taken VERY carefully.

4) The FED rate is just an overnight rate, and the inflation rate is usually an annualized rate. You can't compare the two.

5) Campaign finance really has no bearing on my personally. I find most of what is going on re Citizens United to be offensive, but the fact is, people know it is happening, and transparency is often the best response. What is much more dangerous is if the campaign finance was secret. The CU issue is out there, and increasingly people are showing their disgust. The situation in the end may just correct itself.

6) My believe is that all politicians should put ALL of their investments in a blind trust. There may be some case by case exceptions, (say if I was a rep and the trustee decided to sell my company), but in general, a blind trust is the way to go. It doesn't go to the 'vision' problem though.

  • 3 votes
#1.29 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 4:33 PM EST
Seriously? No...Really?!

My beef with the H1B is not the worker, but how often times, companies like Microsoft and HP use those visas as a means of undercutting the prevailing rates in the domestic market.

Next, I hope Citizens United corrects itself. Unfortunately it's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This decision, like the one where it was ruled that Net Neutrality was out of the auspices of the FCC Charter to enforce, it's the SCOTUS telling us that we need new legislation on these subjects because the old rules only loosely apply.

Now, regarding the Fed Rate vs. the inflation rate. This is why I don't suggest using the current method of measuring inflation in deciding what rate to peg to, because I contend first that it does not accurately reflect the level of actual dollar valuation by way of how it applies towards purchases and changes in the cost of living. Basically, I want the rate to be tied closer to the consumer's economic status. Next, while inflation is ordinarily calculated on an annual basis, the Fed already makes assumptions about inflation and trends it out when they make their decisions, I don't think pegging their rate at/near the trend-line is out of the realm of possibility

Lastly, totally agreed about the blind trust for politicians.

As for your concern about vision, I don't think visionaries are what we need in office. People who are simply idealistic don't get a lot done because they usually lack flexibility when something doesn't fit into their vision. TeaParty politicians are idealists with a vision...but they have no idea how to get there...but they're angry, and that's why they got elected ^_^

I think we need more practical and pragmatic people. What are huge problems but a bunch of small problems working in concert with each other.

If we could put the nuts-and-bolts-type people on these issues and solve them individually, the process itself can change in aggregate.

  • 3 votes
#1.30 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 7:13 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

Well if it can be proven by someone that it isn't undercutting prevailing rates, then you can get the company in trouble, but the law itself is contradictory because if they can demonstrate need, then the filling of the position itself can be demonstrated to lower the prevailing rate because the rate is in part determined by demand/supply.

As for the H1B, it is much better that they do the H1B than just offshore like what IBM does. Take your pick, you want the money to at least be spent here, or just go offshore. The H1B's really should be paths to immigration, which is the real problem, we bring people into the country, and then after they basically settle down, we kick em back out. Just doesn't make sense.

For inflation, every measurement has issues, CPI, for all its faults, isn't any better or any worse and is changed frequently. The dollar valuation though is a totally different measure, because the answer will be different depending on who you ask. For me, working in the financial industry for more than a decade, the dollars value is always 1.00, because as the global reserve currency, the US dollar is always the base when valuing every other currency. If you are talking buying power, even that is difficult to measure, because some things go up in value, others go down. That is why CPI for all its faults, really does try to measure what people are buying.

You are right though, about the feds decision making process, but they do that because it usually takes close to a year before a change in the fed rate works its way through the economy, which is exactly why they do what they do. It isn't an instant lever (if they reduce the money supply, THAT is instant, but the impact of that reduction is what has latency). The problem with the fed rate being tied to the consumers economic status is that the fed rate has no bearing on it. Because it is an overnight rate, it is an institutional component, not a consumer component. The consumer component is very much down stream, impacted by those latent events.

My concern about vision is that the tea party has NO vision. They have an ideology. The real problem with the tea party is that they really are just dick armey republicans wrapped up in a pretty (well not so pretty in the case of the tea party) grassroots wrapper. What we need is someone with a vision of where we want to be in a generation, not about how to win the next election. The government is the ONLY entity that has the ability to guide the country into the future, to see everything that is happening with the economy, and be able to make long term decisions that ensure our prosperity in the future. It isn't about micromanagers, it is about ideas that people may have that give us a point to look forward to. EVERYTHING that the government is doing right now is EXTREMELY short term. But guess what, companies can do short term. Individuals can do short term. What we need is a thought process that spans out 20 years, or even more. It isn't about the nuts and bolts, because that is the reason why the tea party is so bad for the country. They are purely nuts and bolts, with NO concept of what it is they are really trying to do.

THAT is what I mean by vision.

  • 2 votes
#1.31 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 8:52 PM EST
Mark from Bridgeport

SNR's ideas:

1. Yes, that is a good idea, but I think you might want to reconsider it this way: If your capital gains exceed more than you earn *and* if the total amount you are claiming as income puts you in the top tax bracket, you pay 25%.
Otherwise, this would inadvertantly clobber retirees and folks that work in various industries at a moderate wage but also get paid in stock. (IE: a $38,000 a year web developer for a tech startup).

1b. I also advocate adding another two top income tax rates: $350,000 - $1,000,000 (28%) and $1,000,000+ (32%). It's absurd that folks at 350k, 3m, and 3b a year all pay the same rate. I also advocate a 5% minimum tax paid from $33,000 and up, so that no matter what deductions are made, there is always something paid unless you're in the bottom half of all earners.

1c. Banish the AMT! Never indexed for inflation, this punitive tax never hit the group it was supposed to and punishes many it in theory wasn't supposed to.

2. Agree.

3. Agree, but add environmental requirements too. Another major reason for offshoring is lax environmental laws. I disagree re: Jonathan's point about national soverignty: if country X wants favored trade, they play by our rules. I

4. I actually would go for the repeal of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This is what gave us credit default swaps, the Enron loophole and basically set the stage for the Great Recession. That alone would be a huge leap forward and have a known impact.

5. Agree, but doesn't go far enough. It needs to be illegal for any corporation to contribute to any campaign. I don't care if it's GE, the UAW or the Salvation Army... this needs to happen.

6. Waaaay overdue. Get rid of Congressional Healthcare too.

  • 2 votes
#1.32 - Fri Feb 3, 2012 3:04 PM EST
Seriously? No...Really?!

Jonathan-1917156

The H1B's really should be paths to immigration, which is the real problem, we bring people into the country, and then after they basically settle down, we kick em back out. Just doesn't make sense.

YES YES YES! I think I posted this in another one of our discussions on this process in the past, but I think that it should be a requirement that when a company applies for H1B-workers, they should be required to sponsor those people for citizenship if they so desire. It's amazing how much valuable expertise is just forcefully shipped away because there's no fast-track to keep them in our system, especially if they WANT to be here.

The problem with the fed rate being tied to the consumers economic status is that the fed rate has no bearing on it. Because it is an overnight rate, it is an institutional component, not a consumer component. The consumer component is very much down stream, impacted by those latent events.

The Fed Rate has no direct baring on consumers, but it effects most/all of the institutions that consumers are directly affected by. I see raising the Fed Rate as a means of putting banks back to work offering an interest on savings that is actually above the natural inflationary rate and pull them out of the markets making almost instant arbitrage off of taxpayer dollars. These banks aren't improving markets with their activities, they're adding volatility and hedging against Uncle Sam to do it...all the while avoiding being competitive to attract people that SHOULD be their customers/suppliers (e.g. borrowers and depositors).

what we need is someone with a vision of where we want to be in a generation, not about how to win the next election.

We need a WHOLE government full of those people! Look at how hard it's been for Obama to even close GITMO! For heaven's sake, it's like pulling hen's teeth!

Obama is a visionary, but he can't get the support of his opposition or constituency for that matter! One side is hellbent on sabotage, the other side is terrified of losing their seat for fear of Obama's policies becoming too difficult to stomach.

It's become far too ridiculous in DC and the lobbying dollars ensure that the barrier to entry for high-political-office is that one must first be groomed by the establishment before moving forward, or otherwise face an endless bombardment from their competition that effectively mutes effective opposition.

No one is willing to make the unpopular decisions, so it's nothing but short-term fixes from now ad infinitum until only the proper choices can be made...and the corresponding destruction incurred (rather than avoided).

@ Mark from Bridgeport

Agreed!

  • 2 votes
#1.33 - Fri Feb 3, 2012 7:02 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

The H1B as a visa is NOT a dual intent visa, so if a company is going to sponsor someone for permanent residency, then they cannot use the H1B or they are breaking the law outright. It is the nature of the US 'immigration' system and that has nothing to do with the companies, it is the government created retarded laws, and the companies taking advantage of them.

Nothing at this point is going to get banks to offer savings rates even close to inflation. That is because the entire banking industry has changed, We would have to revert back to the banking system of the gold standard era in order for that to happen. Good idea, ineffectual solution, unfortunately.

I think that Obama has given up on trying to close GITMO to be honest lol.

  • 3 votes
#1.34 - Fri Feb 3, 2012 9:17 PM EST
Seriously? No...Really?!

@ Jonathan-1917156

Agreed about the H1B; to clarify, I'm suggesting revising the design of it so that workers brought in via H1B are then given the option of applying for citizenship.

Next, banks offered interest rates that exceeded inflation back when the Fed Rate was significantly higher and it was cheaper to use deposits and inter-bank borrowing than to go to "the lender of last resort".

Now, the Fed offers a rate that no banking entity can compete with (i.e. near-zero), therefore the Fed is the lender of first-resort...hence why the banks no longer need to lend to people and no longer offer viable interest rates on deposits. Instead the banks charge fees on deposits and use said deposits to trade in the open market. If they can beat the Fed's near-zero charge, they've made money off of the trades

ARBITRAGE

Lastly, agreed, I think that if Obama gets another term, he will probably wait until the closing hour before even broaching the subject of closing GITMO

  • 2 votes
#1.35 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:07 PM EST
Jonathan-1917156

That was back on the gold standard (I am not sure if the ending of the gold standard or other factors changed this so please don't read into that statement what many will think it means). The difference between then and now is that the FED couldn't just 'create' money, it had to be backed by gold, therefore the cost to the fed to create money was much greater than it is today.

    #1.36 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:11 PM EST
    Seriously? No...Really?!

    @ Jonathan-1917156

    Nixon ended the Gold Standard in the US (Breton Woods Act). The interest that banks offered for savings rates were significantly higher well after. In fact, they were higher through part of the Clinton Administration

    Take a look here

    It's all the info you'll need. Just build a quick chart off of the prevailing Fed Funds Rate against many of the different inflation levels (yes, there's multicollinearity, so don't bother with a regression ^_^) and also show the prevailing secondary market CD's over the same timeframes (use that as the prevailing market-"cost of capital" that banks pay on deposits). Notice the trends between the Fed Funds Rate and the CD's over the years.

    The Fed Rate is below the natural rate of inflation, because of that, banks are given instant arbitrage by having access to cash at a rate that's less than what the prevailing market would charge them for it...because of that, banks are given instant arbitrage on said cash and do not need to compete in the market for such liquidity because Uncle Sam is giving it away for virtually nothing.

    There's a direct correlation between the CD's interest offerings and the Fed Rate, and there's a reason why markets have had the churn they've had recently, its because the profit is in trading, not lending or deposits.

    If we want banks to function properly, we need to bring back Glass Steagall, or we need to require that the Fed gradually raise its rate to more closely reflect the natural rate of inflation until it finally exceeds it by a small margin.

    • 2 votes
    #1.37 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:15 PM EST
    Jonathan-1917156

    seriously,

    I don't remember bank interest rates every being anything remotely close to being higher than inflation. After the gold standard, yes, interest rates were higher from the banks, but the inflation rate was still extremely high.

    Now I am not saying there isn't a problem. A huge problem is that the fed is keeping the rate low to discourage inflation, but right now we are in a position where a bit of inflation might actually do some good, to eat away at the real cost of the debt. But in order to do that, you need to have a balanced federal budget because if you increase the interest rate while you are running a deficit, then your new and 'recycled' debt will just end up costing you more (Most US government debt, as opposed to the FED debt, they are different, is in 1 to 5 year cycles)

    The reality is that the savings rate is so low now that banks really can't get enough money from savings from which to pay reasonable rates of interest, but in order to increase that savings rate, you are going to stifle consumer spending, which is what drives the economy (I am not saying this is a good thing, I am saying that it is just reality). If the banks can't get enough money from customers saving money, then it means that it can't really be used to generate longer term investment income. So the interest rate on those deposits will tend to be lower.

    The fed rate by the way is below the rate of inflation, not to give banks instant arbitrage, but because the system right now is completely out of wack. The fed is being used to stabilize and grow the economy because nobody else is willing to do it. The end result is that most of the money in the economy essentially is in its own little (well not so little) economy. Again, not saying this is a good thing, but that it is just reality right now. To me, it is yet another example of what happens when you treat the income from financial transactions as preferential from a tax perspective. If I am only going to get taxed 15% to do a financial transaction rather than 35% to do another form of economic transaction, which one are you going to choose?

    As for Glass-Steagall, it won't do anything to bring back any balance, in fact what is really needed in the overall financial system (I don't mean for the subject that you bring up, but for other reasons) is MORE financial integration. That is actually the only way to bring the data together to do proper risk analysis assessments. It is in my mind one of the reasons why the Canadian banks didn't skip a beat in 2008, they are ALL highly integrated, both vertically and horizontally. Glass Steagall was a solution for a different time, it is no longer a valid solution.

      #1.38 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:32 PM EST
      Seriously? No...Really?!

      Jonathan-1917156

      A huge problem is that the fed is keeping the rate low to discourage inflation

      A low Fed Rate spurs on inflation, it doesn't reduce it. A low Fed Rate means that the Fed is flooding the market with cash. It floods the market by both buying up the T-bills that the central banks hold as well as offering a pegged overnight rate.

      These Fed-actions actually work to increase inflation. I contend that the reason why it is not is because we are capitalizing off of being the world's reserve currency, AND inflation moves counter-cyclically to unemployment. Since unemployment is really high, inflation is still really low.

      That is not to say that some inflation wouldn't be bad, the problem is that the forces that would bring it on are so strong as to make it hyper-inflation rather than minor, natural inflation.

      But in order to do that, you need to have a balanced federal budget because if you increase the interest rate while you are running a deficit, then your new and 'recycled' debt will just end up costing you more

      We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If the Fed raises its rate, the effect would be to make new debt issuances more expensive than old debt issuances, thereby negating any chance of further kicking the can down the road and refinancing outstanding debt with new debt at a lower rate. If we were to keep the Fed Rate low and allow inflation to really get a foothold, then the inflation-premium that makes up the "risk-free-rate" will rise considerably and make new debt issuances more expensive than old debt issuances.

      On the subject of paying off the outstanding debt (assuming a balanced budget to be able to do so. A higher Fed Rate would raise the value of the US dollar as the money supply begins to shrink, this would make the burden of satisfying the outstanding debt lower because each dollar would go further as it appreciates against a fixed cost. Conversely, an inflated dollar would reduce the cost of the outstanding debt by devaluing it, allowing us to simply throw more dollars at the same fixed cost than before, essentially winning a nearly impossible game of Limbo by killing our reputation as the world's reserve currency

      ...I Pyrrhic Victory if you ask me.

      in order to increase that savings rate, you are going to stifle consumer spending, which is what drives the economy (I am not saying this is a good thing, I am saying that it is just reality).

      Technically, it's leveraged consumer spending that has been driving the economy. Not consumer spending in and of itself. We've been padding the numbers for over 20 years because as the consumer savings-rate went down and the degree of leverage went up, the items being purchased were actually deferred liabilities to someone, and not truly new assets. It was a feverish spending spree of the WWII generation's remaining savings and what little that the Baby Boomers maintain.

      Now we're trying to restart the consumer-driven spending economy, but we've used up most of our tank of gas (i.e. the consumers). Unemployment is dropping by reasonable numbers (FINALLY), but people are up to their eyeballs in debt and many others have a shoddy credit rating by this point. Spending is going to be slow for at least 5years. People are trying to replenish their savings now that some are starting to find their footing again.

      The fed rate by the way is below the rate of inflation, not to give banks instant arbitrage, but because the system right now is completely out of wack. The fed is being used to stabilize and grow the economy because nobody else is willing to do it

      Yes, agreed, but it needs to start happening soon, if not now. Banks not lending and savers not depositing is effectively locking the flow of money and banks aren't going to lend until they have to...they're making far too much money in the markets.

      it is yet another example of what happens when you treat the income from financial transactions as preferential from a tax perspective. If I am only going to get taxed 15% to do a financial transaction rather than 35% to do another form of economic transaction, which one are you going to choose?

      Agreed! In fact, I'd love to turn the tables and put direct income on the 15% fixed rate and give financial transactions the sliding scale graduated tax and AMT if not just to watch the GOP's head spin!

      As for Glass-Steagall, it won't do anything to bring back any balance, in fact what is really needed in the overall financial system is MORE financial integration

      I've got my fingers crossed for the Canadian banks...but I think that you over-simplify how the Canadian banks weathered this financial storm so well, and I think much of it has to do with the fact that they were not as integrated with the Euro-zone markets and more closely to LIBOR and the GBP where they are not integrated with US Banks.

      I tend to lean towards safety through diversification.

      Consolidation, whose benefits allow for faster decision-making also allows for collusion and monopolization, which can often lead to abusive practices and numerous inefficiencies. I'm all for informational integration to better and more rapidly assess risk and value of financial instruments, but consolidation for consolidation's-sake is to revisit the days of the Robber Barons like JP Morgan

      Glass Steagall was a solution for a different time, it is no longer a valid solution.

      Literally yes, fundamentally no. I think that it was masterfully brilliant to separate the saving and lending side from the trading and brokering side of banking. By preventing the two from intermingling so intimately, we probably wouldn't have had this whole mortgage-backed security debacle to begin with...or at least the bubble would have inflated more slowly and or burst a lot sooner.

      • 1 vote
      #1.39 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:18 PM EST
      Jonathan-1917156

      A low fed rate in itself doesn't spur or reduce inflation. It has to be in conjunction with other economic factors. Right now the economic factors are such that if the fed overnight rate isn't close to 0, then the economy would start to shrink and we would probably start creating deflationary pressures. This is the scary part of what is happening right now, especially since some of what is going on is counter intuitive. (I would like to thank Mr Greenspan for his idiotic economic theories based on the principles of Ayn Rand for the current situation).

      Personally I am sort of feeling that a level of inflation in the 4 to 5% range might actually be beneficial to the economy, to drive out some of the structural cost of the current debt levels, but again, the government needs to have a balanced budget or a surplus to make that effective.

      Right now though, the biggest reason why the interest rate is so low is because it has to be, but it is also that way because there really isn't a heck of a lot to invest in right now. Think about it, a bank is only going to pay high interest on money that they borrow if they have something to invest it in that is going to make them MORE than that interest. With the overnight rate so low, it would probably shock you to believe that my company, with no material debt (well there is some, but it is completely hedged) and absolutely no negative credit impact cannot borrow money unless it is in the close to double digit interest rate range. But that isn't because we are a bad credit risk, it is that most of the money in 'circulation' doesn't even hit the economy. It stays in its own little world in the financial industry. With that, because most of that money borrowed from the fed really has no impact on the economy as a whole, so talking about it like it does is pointless.

      Again, is this healthy? no, but all I am trying to say is, that is the way our economy right now is structured. The financial industry is just going with the flow in this case, they aren't creating it.

      And yes, I agree, it is leveraged spending that has been driving the economy, so that just makes the problem worse, because before you get to the savings part, you need to fix the spending on borrowed money part. It would help if the share of the income pie would start to move to a point that was similar to what it was 40 years ago, but everyone it seems is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening, even if that position would benefit them.

      As for the Canadian banks, yes I simplified them but the integration itself has prevented them from investing in those euro zone markets. Because the Canadian banks had a long track record of the euro country risk default rates, they were never considered to be viable investments, so even if they did buy into them, they were never allowed to have the leverage that the banks in the US have had. (this is a regulatory issue, but the regulation is basically, the regulator can dictate to you what leverage we will allow you to have. It isn't a set limit). So based on Greeces track record, the banks could by that debt, but they wouldn't be allowed to leverage it to the same extent than if they bought say 'german government bonds'. Again, the integration of the banks, having happened decades ago, has helped them because they have that information.

      The BIGGEST problem that happened in 2008 was that because the financial system is not integrated, you had a very serious disconnect between the different parts of the financial industry. So you had the mortgage brokers creating false mortgage applications, because hey, once they sell them to fannie mae or freddie mac, it isn't their problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securitize those mortgages based on fake information (not their fault, they don't know about it), so everything looks good on paper, but it isn't. Then the insurance part comes in, the CDO's and they pricing of the insurance part is based on what the risk rating is, but this is wrong, so not only is the risk of default now not valid, but the loss given default is now not what it appears to be, so the 'insurance' part is now being priced at a value that is lower than it should be.

      This CAN'T happen in Canada. Why not? Because the financial industry is integrated and the banks are responsible for every part of the process. In canada the banks are the mortgage brokers (though they do have independent brokers, they sell what the banks offer), so it is up to them to make sure the applications are copacetic. The banks create the MBS's, but because they are the underwriter, and are responsible for the applications that issue the mortgages, they are legally liable for ensuring that everything is accurate, so if a default results due to fraud in the mortgage application, the issuer of the MBS is responsible. The banks also have many decades of risk information relating to the default rates of people employed in various industries, companies in various regions, industries. They have this information specifically because they are integrated.

      The problem that the US has is that there is no way to correlate this information because the industry is segregated into little silos, but that only works if the segment itself is truly segregated, but in the case of the overall economy, there really is no segregation.

      Yes there are potential risks, but there are risks the other way too. I would personally rather have a strong regulatory structure along with the integration than have what is present in the US, which is that extremely fast decision making but complete ignorance about what goes on around you. And I would have to disagree that integration would allow for much faster decision making. The fastest way to make a decision is to be ignorant of the facts. If you have to actually look at your data to make a decision, then that takes longer to process than if there is no information.

      Also, another factor, in Canada, yes, the banks themselves generally create their risk analysis assessments, but they are legally liable for those assessments. There is NO plausible deniability in Canada. If an institution doesn't have experience in a market segment, then the leverage that they can take on within that industry will be lower than for an industry that they do have experience (and the data) in.

      As for the intermingling, how many banks do you think took advantage of the removal of the glass steagall restrictions? There were only two that took advantage of it before and one that took advantage of it after the 2008 implosion. It quite honestly wasn't a factor. People seem to think of it as having this big impact, but it didn't. Now another part of that same law DID create a huge problem, but that had nothing to do with glass steagall, because derivatives didn't exist when glass steagall was created. Reinstating glass steagall would not correct that problem, and it would continue to make the use of derivatives higher risk than they otherwise would be, and they would still be deregulated.

        #1.40 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 4:55 PM EST
        Seriously? No...Really?!

        Jonathan-1917156

        I would like to thank Mr Greenspan for his idiotic economic theories based on the principles of Ayn Rand for the current situation

        +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

        If I could plus-one your comment more I would! TOTALLY AGREED!

        But face facts, the Fed rate, while not being the only driver of inflation, is a keystone in where it settles.

        Personally I am sort of feeling that a level of inflation in the 4 to 5% range might actually be beneficial to the economy, to drive out some of the structural cost of the current debt levels

        Agreed. That is around the level of natural inflation in fact.

        but again, the government needs to have a balanced budget or a surplus to make that effective.

        The government isn't going to become responsible until it has to. The way to do that is to cut off the easy funds and make it harder for the crony-capitalists to send another round of pork to their home-states or get us into another war to grease the palms of the contractors all on credit.

        I've come to the point that we need to treat government like an addict and the private sector like its dealer. If we want to get Uncle Sam off the junk, we have to get tough with them, first by cutting off the easy flow of cash, followed by restricting/removing contact with the dealer and enablers.

        Think about it, a bank is only going to pay high interest on money that they borrow if they have something to invest it in that is going to make them MORE than that interest

        Au contraire, banks aren't going to offer a competitive interest rate until competitive forces drive them to do so. These companies aren't charities, they will pocket as much profits as they can, be it from fees or trading in the markets.

        But if you want to talk about where they get money from loans, how about the consumer debt that they charge upwards of 30% on? Their client-default rates on the debt is waaaaaaaaay lower than the amount they fetch on interest payments and the service fees they charge to vendors for supporting the cards especially. How about the non-debentured debts like auto and home loans, those interest rates are still nice and tidy, certainly A LOT higher than the near-zero rate that they get from Uncle Sam.

        There's plenty of money to be made in making loans, the problem is that for lenders, its a race to the bottom and there's equal competition and usury laws. None of those profit-stifling regulations exist in trading, and best of all, because there's no monetary incentive for consumers to save, there's more money in the market chasing after fewer investments...this type of scenario plays to those with the house-advantage...the traders with the funds, connections and expertise...not the individual investors.

        If we want competitive banks, we need to get them out of the markets and back into making loans...they will not on their own volition.

        ...I would personally rather have a strong regulatory structure along with the integration than have what is present in the US

        That's a fair assessment, agreed. But I'm a major anti-trust proponent, so I'd want some serious skull-busting power if people/companies start abusing their market influence to drive up rates/costs artificially.

        As for the intermingling, how many banks do you think took advantage of the removal of the glass steagall restrictions? There were only two that took advantage of it before and one that took advantage of it after the 2008 implosion.

        Interesting, I will have to take a look into that...but I thought that if it weren't for the removal of Glass Steagall, the shell-game-type mechanism that was constructed to make and bundle mortgages into salable instruments for Fannie/Freddie would not have existed (at least in the manner it was constructed) were it not for Glass-Steagall's removal.

        As for the Derivatives/Commodities Modernization Act. Agreed, GSA never had derivatives in the formula, and in fact, derivatives are a fantastic financial instrument (when not abused).

        I used "reinstate GSA" loosely, as I would want to modernize it to be relevant to today's standards.

        I'm still iffy on allowing consolidation of the banking industry however...and it has more to do with the private sector's relationship with government than how they'd necessarily conduct themselves in the market.

        A powerful banking monopoly/oligopoly would have way too much sway in political dealings when we're talking about the size of the US financial market. There's a reason why TDR broke JP Morgan and others apart.

        We can have a coherent IT-infrastructure and establish accountability without allowing consolidations...that's precisely how the NASDAQ works...it can be done, we have the technology.

        Lastly, I don't know if we can reliably use Canada as a petri dish for how to model the American financial system given that Canada has a far different approach towards corporate governance and the conduct of the boards of directors...btw, I like Canada's approach, but I think the US isn't ready for one without the other.

        • 1 vote
        #1.41 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:42 PM EST
        Jonathan-1917156

        but I thought that if it weren't for the removal of Glass Steagall, the shell-game-type mechanism that was constructed to make and bundle mortgages into salable instruments for Fannie/Freddie would not have existed (at least in the manner it was constructed) were it not for Glass-Steagall's removal.

        Nope, that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall's repeal allowed for the creation of the current Citi, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America (with bank of american being created after the 2008 collapse when it bought Merrill Lynch under the direction of the treasury).

        That is the ONLY thing that Glass-Steagall's cross restriction removal did.

        It really is a non issue.

        And no, you can't use Canada's model as an exact pattern of how to manage the US system because the economies are quite different, so there won't be exact parallels, but the concepts can be similar. The US economy for example, because it is much larger, can withstand higher risk because it is much larger than Canada can. In canada a big risk event being triggered would have a much larger impact on the canadian economy than in the US, so the details of how it would be handled would also be different.

          #1.42 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:49 PM EST
          Seriously? No...Really?!

          I've had it up to here with risk-taking CEOs putting entire companies on the line so that they can max out their bonuses.

          Those people should be dancing on the end of a rope, or at least strangled by their own golden parachutes

          There's no accountability for the kinds of criminal deception and thievery that went on and I fear that the reason why these people were not brought to justice is because the fallout from showing just how crooked these practices were would also result in showing the world just how paper-thin the whole idea of fractional-reserve banking in a fiat currency really is!

          Because of the faith-concern when it comes to currencies, I think that I'd rather make it harder for such critical enterprises to make risky decisions, even when the returns are risk-adjusted, because the fallout from failure are people's livelihoods. I've not seen a CEO of a Fortune 500 forgo their bonus so that they could avoid laying off some workers...only the unions were doing that.

          As for our conversation on the China gold-buying (sorry, thread-jack)...we definitely need to take a similar tack to industrial planning like Germany...but just watch the GOP squeal at the thought of making it a requirement that workers be given a significant voting-authority on the board of directors of every major business, not to mention the thought of "civic planning"...how Socialist

          LOL

          • 1 vote
          #1.43 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:42 PM EST
          Jonathan-1917156

          thing is, it isn't criminal, in fact our tax structure encourages it.

            #1.44 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:57 PM EST
            Seriously? No...Really?!

            Indeed, and the funny thing is that the people that should be just as angry at the CEO's as the public and taxpayers should be the shareholders.

            It was these CEOs that took risky bets on their company's dime and took the payouts in the short run, then just jumped ship in golden parachutes when the fallout happened!

            Did the former CEO of Merrill Lynch (before Thain) return the bonuses he made off of investing huge sums of money in junk CDO's and mortgage backed securities, even when internal memos from analysts showed they were far more risky than the rating agencies were letting on.

            ...nope...those bonuses were "owed" to him (and others) from prior period performance!

            What a crock!

            • 1 vote
            #1.45 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:41 PM EST
            Jonathan-1917156

            seriously

            though what is doubly unfortunate is that the drive for 'shareholder value', companies are being sued for NOT trying to pump up share value for the short term. It has made the environment such that if a company doesn't think short term, they will get sued, and lose their jobs and everything they worked for.

            That is the unfortunate nature of business today. It isn't the CEO's fault, that is just the environment that they have to work under.

            • 1 vote
            #1.46 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:45 PM EST
            markpup

            Yes I contract at a company that went private to get out of that. And I've seen other companies do that too it seems like a big trend now.

            It's a tremendous opportunity for private equity firms. They can buy stockholders off of companies that have great potential if they can get out of the quarterly rat race then grow them. It's too bad stockholders aren't sophisticated enough to stay long term with companies like that too in the end, they're missing out on more profit than they'd get going for short-term cutthroat returns.

            • 1 vote
            #1.47 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:52 PM EST
            Jonathan-1917156

            private equity firms though have their own pressures to push for short term gain over longer term viability. The private equity firms earnings are in fact based on it as well, though yes, I agree, properly structured, a PE firm could drive that, it just isn't working out that way.

              #1.48 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:01 PM EST
              Seriously? No...Really?!

              Jonathan-1917156

              It isn't the CEO's fault, that is just the environment that they have to work under.

              Um, it's entirely the CEO's fault...they need to weigh popular opinion against sound-decision-making.

              Perhaps what you meant to say is that the CEO's of today are simply a direct product of a market-demand by investors encouraging (if not requiring) short-sighted decision-making just to stay in the game.

              To that, I agree. But it IS the CEO's respective faults for jumping on risky bets and others for making idiotic knee-jerk layoffs in response which only aggravated the recession further.

                #1.49 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:01 PM EST
                Jonathan-1917156

                seriously, it isn't popular opinion. When you can be literally sued for thinking long term, because it doesn't match up with some shareholders idea of shareholder value, it unfortunately becomes a big problem.

                Been there, done that, I fret EVER having to take my company public, because of that.

                  #1.50 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:03 PM EST
                  markpup

                  Based on what I observed, you won't be CEO long if you don't cater to shareholder's short term gains.

                  It's too bad because raising money by going public is great - it's just there's a multi-ton rock hidden tied to you just under it.

                    #1.51 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:15 PM EST
                    Seriously? No...Really?!

                    Perhaps what needs to be adjusted is just how much power non-voting investors have over the companies they invest in. Those types of shareholder suits are ridiculous for sure. But how frequently successful are they?

                    My understanding is that shareholder-revolts usually revolve around the board being pressured to change the executives around and that the board themselves are worried about their own holdings in the company.

                    The irony is that the people that are least exposed to the downfall of a corporation from short-sighted decision-making are the board and C-level execs, while the stakeholders, shareholders and bondholders are the ones left holding the bag.

                    I like your suggestion about raising the capital gains rates but leaving the investment-income rates low, as it encourages long-term investing and not simply capitalizing on changes in value

                      #1.52 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:46 PM EST
                      markpup

                      Shareholder revolts almost never work because the corporate officers own a big chunk of shares and they have proxy right over any shareholders that don't vote.

                      One change I proposed a few times is there should be some decisions especially executive compensation which changes the rules. On that I think the corporate officers need to recuse and only votes from shareholders that submit votes should count. And I make it a point to never buy stock in companies with high executive compensation or stock options - that's my money they're paying themselves if I'm a stockholder.

                      But the market especially lately is extremely sensitive to short term profits. If you have a quarter where the earnings drop or go negative the stock price falls sharply. And of course if you're a shareholder you won't be too darned happy about that. This is where the CEO really has something substantive to deal with.

                      Even though -- I've often recommended to people that if a company consistently shows profit and suddenly goes negative one quarter, there might be a good opportunity there. Some companies if they know they're going under drag all their skeletons out just to get it over with. Then the next quarter is fine and the stock goes back up. These are the kind of idiot games you're forced to play when you have the quarterly pressure to show a profit.

                      • 1 vote
                      #1.53 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:55 PM EST
                      Jonathan-1917156

                      seriously, well in the case of the shareholders, it doesn't matter if they are voting or non voting, because on the one hand they do have in some cases a point. The problem is that instead of being used on in egregious cases, it is now commonplace. The likelyhood of success is actually pretty high. You don't even have to have it go to trial, the end result could be a special dividend to the shareholders or demand that the company make moves to increase 'shareholder value'. People like Kekorkian have made it an investment strategy to do just this, often also arranging a buyout at a premium to go away, which again affects the company longer term.

                      The tactic works far more effectively than it should in my mind, but again, that is just what the corporate world has to deal with these days.

                        #1.54 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:25 PM EST
                        markpup

                        Yes you have a point - if I'm doing a hostile takeover and I get enough voting shares. Then the corporate officers pay me off to get me to go away as you suggested. This is the kind of scamming that to me creates massive public disgruntlement - acquisition of wealth without creating value of any kind.

                        And of course I think you're right often what the shareholders want is right. I brought up the issue of executive compensation which right now is clearly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. To me voting shareholders minus any current corporate officers owning shares should approve compensation increases. And I'd be really happy if more people buying shares factored in compensation - I never buy stock in companies where executive compensation is high because that's my money they're paying themselves.

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.55 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:44 PM EST
                        MJL-3

                        Well , I am not sure about the overall economy, but I just got a raise :) :)

                        And I am happy :) :)

                        • 2 votes
                        #1.56 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:18 PM EST
                        Seriously? No...Really?!

                        Did it at least exceed inflation I hope?

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.57 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:39 PM EST
                        MJL-3

                        Almost, but it's more than I had before the raise :)

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.58 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:05 PM EST
                        Jonathan-1917156

                        markpup

                        Well one of the things I can say about compensation, and this may be considered situational, but it in part sums up what people need to think about.

                        With my company, I put my salary at about a quarter million a year. (whether I am worth that is a different matter lol). The reality is though, if I didn't own the company, I would probably demand more, because then I wouldn't have an ownership stake. The fact that I own the company though, makes my compensation much more complicated, because I am also gaining 'income' from the perceived value of my company, though that is only realized when I sell. It does indicate however, that my 'demands' for compensation would be very different if I was just an executive of a company that I don't own.

                        Just food for thought.

                          #1.59 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:51 PM EST
                          markpup

                          Hi Jonathan - I have no problems with you making that much and I'd invest in your company. To me I used to see small business owners make that equivalent consistently and I think it's fair with all the risk, stress, and hours you put in to make a business run. I know one guy here that runs a restaurant with about 20 employees and he clears 100K a year - not nearly enough! I wouldn't do it. It's a lot harder getting and running a small business than it was 30-40 years ago.

                          I have one sister that said the same as you too! She said that if she managed for someone else it would have to be for twice as much as what she clears now. It makes a difference if it's yours.

                          When I talk about executive compensation I'm talking obviously out of hand. It's OK to me to be paid well for running a company.

                            #1.60 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:42 PM EST
                            Jonathan-1917156

                            yes, but what I am saying is that if I didn't own the company, I would be setting my compensation demands much higher, because I am not taking part in the equity part of the company's growth.

                              #1.61 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:47 PM EST
                              markpup

                              That makes sense!! I think in my sister's case she just likes running her very own business and that's the difference. I'll bet if I asked her about it she'd probably also agree having something worth more to sell at the end of the road is also an incentive, but I suspect she's not thinking much about that right now because it's still far down the road.

                                #1.62 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:56 PM EST
                                johny-388777

                                I think that you don't want to apportion the blame and this article is much of cowardice then what the reality of the problem really is. The republican party moved to the far right. The Democrat party moved into the middle. We have a corporate super majority. Bascially the country is F+ked because of these animals who will do anything to keep the rich rich.

                                IF we put in policies to achieve better income equality. Then the economy will grow.

                                All i seem to get into is arguments about what is a small business or a big business and these talking points.

                                We need to cut the size of income to executives. We have to regulate it down. That simple.

                                How we measure success? These A-hole upper management get paid less and we put in laws to catch them when they sabotage the public corporations.

                                • 1 vote
                                #1.63 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:30 AM EST
                                Reply
                                warrior wheatman

                                Given the political situation, barring a new upstart, BO stands to gain authority.

                                Problem is, his party still needs to get convinced as well. Wish he'd run as an independent with a star-struck following; A clean slate with future purpose; A truly 'hope and change'. Off with the dead wood.

                                There are platform possibilities galore. My favorite is join the rest of the world with the decimal system; Also 'Transaction tax' of 0.02% on All transactions; Also .. yeh i could keep going.

                                • 2 votes
                                #2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:38 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                I really wish that there was something coming out of the whitehouse other than 'payroll tax cut' as a solution to our problems. We may be able to start growth again, but it will be anemic, unless we can create something that will generate the conditions for that growth, new industries, new opportunities.

                                It is all fine and dandy to say we must adjust to the new reality, but when that new reality is declining opportunity, it doesn't really bode well.

                                Now if Obama was coming out with ideas and solutions, then I would have a different opinion.

                                And I think you mean metric system, not decimal lol. (FYI, I am in the US, and all of our products are metric measure (we can do both but it requires a machine tool change).

                                • 6 votes
                                #2.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:45 PM EST
                                gmross

                                Jonathan something did come out of there, congress rejected it, remember the American Jobs Act?

                                • 5 votes
                                #2.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:56 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                gmross,

                                which is more short term money pumping, which is fine on its own if this were a normal recession (meaning just a cyclical economic downturn) but this is more structural. (and don't get me wrong on this comment, we need to fix our infrastructure). It doesn't address the structural problems. Jobs have been leaving the country, they aren't coming back. We need 'new jobs in new industries' to take over.

                                It is also 3 years too late.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:04 PM EST
                                gmross

                                It still would have created one hell of a lot of jobs, jobs congress seems reluctant to create. The rest of the problem could have been handled later, if possible. Right now all I can see is obstruction from congress in the hopes that the GOP regains the White House and senate. From were I stand right now it's as if the GOP has one goal and that goal must be fulfilled no matter who it hurts, regain the White House in 2012.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.4 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:10 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                gmross:

                                I see the viewpoint, but what I am concerned about is the creation of jobs artificially (which is what a short term stimulus does), to the creation of industries that create the jobs. Everything that we have been exposed to is short term. It is too much of a, lets pump money into this short term thing which will help us through this economic cycle.

                                What I am saying though is that this isn't part of a cycle. It is far more radical. The normal 'ideas' just won't work. We need to start coming up with ideas on how to build that next 'generation' of industries, or we are just going to push our way through to the next economic collapse. I haven't seen anything from Obama to indicates that he has any grasp of that. Now, as I said, it is NEITHER party that seems to have a clue. That is the scary part.

                                • 6 votes
                                #2.5 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:44 PM EST
                                gmross

                                This is one reason that Obama wanted to raise the amounts of Pell Grants and student loans, and he wanted to put more money into the education system, to improve it. Without well educated people earning engineering degrees and creating new industries we will not achieve job growth. In my state there is a 50% drop out rate before the end of high school, because most of the kids here come from poor families and can't afford to go to college, so, they figure why even try to get an education if they can get a job that earns a little money for a little education, ie, working on farms or in fast food places. With out the next generation getting better educations and better educational opportunities then we will not grow as a nation and we won't be able to grow our private sector either.

                                • 5 votes
                                #2.6 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:03 AM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                The increasing of Pell Grants and Student Loans would be fine if it were part of an overall plan. It won't transform the economy. The problem with this on its own is that it doesn't solve the problem that we face, that of the trend to fewer high value jobs, which is what will drive the economy. It isn't an indication of a vision either. It is just more of the same solutions of the past. It is from my position, a handout, without an overall strategy. I am not against the handout, by any means, as I strongly believe that as a society, we need to offer equality of opportunity, if not of income. We need to offer everyone who has the mind an appropriate education. But we need to commit to that with a strategy.

                                I guess what I would be looking for is a what some might call manhattan projects, along with a restructuring of our tax system to encourage real investment (not the stock market kind) but improvements in our educational system would be a part of that, but it would in part be driven by the needs of those manhattan projects.

                                Also, as we see with the for profit schools, having an education doesn't necessarily help a person. The problem of student loans and student debt is, as mstanley will back up, pretty much at a crisis point right now.

                                With my own company, I honestly don't see a sustainable business in 10 to 20 years, so what good is it if people are getting educated if there is no jobs to justify that education.

                                As I said, both parties are VERY guilty of this, though the republicans are largely reckless in their policies, the democrats have been pretty much useless.

                                And don't get me wrong, I would take Obama as president over ANY of the options in the other party, but that doesn't make him a great choice, or even a good choice.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.7 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:22 AM EST
                                gmross

                                Jonathan, if you take the increase in education along with the Jobs Bill and the fact that Obama tried to get a bill passed that gave credits to companies that kept jobs in the country and penalized the ones that outsourced to other country's, I think you will see a plan that was trying to come together for a permanent solution. Yes, the majority of the jobs in the jobs bill were and are temporary, but, if it is important for companies to pay less in taxes and if they outsource them they pay more in taxes than just leaving them here don't you think the companies will leave jobs here? Did I confuse you here? I hope not if I did let me know and I'll try to straighten out my thoughts better. :-P

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.8 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:35 AM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                It is STILL band-aid solutions. They all assume that the current economic downturn is cyclical, and it isn't. It is structural, It is something we have been building up to for the last 30 years.

                                It is very similar to what happened in the great depression, only that because we have a fiat monetary system, we have been able to avoid most of the extreme impact (which might in itself be bad, nothing to tell you that you need to change than shock therapy).

                                And herein lies the problem. Not only does our government lack the vision, but most of the people of the country lack it as well. Our government is the ONE single entity that is equipped to think about the future of the country. People can't, they think about their personal lives. Companies can't, they think about the company's health, not the nations. The future of the country is the governments job. We really haven't seen this attitude in our government since the early 60's.

                                And paying less in taxes just shifts the burden to someone else to pay the taxes. GE (as an example) pretty much already pays pretty much 0 in taxes over the last few years, so exactly how much more of a tax break do they need? (Any company that has international operations can take the exact same transfer pricing scheme that GE uses by the way). Clearly low tax rates hasn't encouraged GE to hire more people in the US, they have started to move their manufacturing to china.

                                The issue with tax breaks is that you get into the argument of what level of taxation is needed. If you take a balanced budget starting point, you have a requirement to derive a revenue of say 1 billion dollars (just tossing numbers to illustrate). Say you have 5 companies each paying 200 million (total of a billion). Now if you give company 1 a 50 million dollar tax break, you need to make that up somewhere, so you spread it across the others, but if the other companies ALL take the same tax break, you end up with a structural problem. This is the problem with our system right now.

                                (and YES, I AGREE tax reform needs to be a huge part of the solution, we need to change a lot in the tax system, but again, it needs to be part of a strategic plan, not a tactical solution)

                                And by the way, we need MORE solyndra's, we need more money going into risk ventures, because that is the only way we are going to create new industries. We need the government to be funding ventures that are valid ventures, but would otherwise not be able to get funding through private means. But we need that on a much larger scale, not a 30 billion dollar fund from the DoE, but a 100 billion dollar fund, a 200 billion dollar fund. We need to accept risk, but our country has become so risk adverse. But it isn't just one thing, it is many things, and it needs to be in a coordinated plan with a broad vision of the type of country that we want to have. This is what is missing.

                                Again, as I said, I would take Obama over ALL the GOP candidates, but that isn't saying that Obama is good, that is just saying he is better than the others. To me it is pretty sad that we are choosing our leaders that are in my mind, just not as bad as the others. That is pretty scary actually.

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.9 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:50 AM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                gmross

                                don't get me wrong, I guess my problem with Obama is that he hasn't even proposed anything strategic. He may have something in mind, but refuses to announce or develop it because he knows the GOP will block it, so it may just be a 'what's the point' attitude.

                                But if he doesn't even propose something, then what is there for people to see?

                                That doesn't change the fact that the only thing that the GOP has to offer is even more extreme of the same policies that got us into this position (the moment each one of them proposed bringing the capital gains tax down to 0 is the moment that each and everyone of them was classified as 'clueless' in my mind.

                                It is frustrating because over the next few years, I have to make some decisions. I can't keep just extending my visa that I have to be able to live and run my company here. So what do I base that decision on? do I stay in the hope that something positive will happen? or do I leave and basically write the country off as a place to build and try to grow my business?

                                I would like to be able to have confidence that I can stay and grow my business (in that process hire lots of people), but how can I honestly commit to that if I don't think that there will be a healthy enough, diverse enough, and growing economic base from which to try to build that business. (notice here, I am not talking about lowering my taxes, bitching about the EPA or other regulations etc... it is about having the foundation for a strong economy, something that is right now, in my mind, has some severe cracks that need to be fixed).

                                • 6 votes
                                #2.10 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:05 AM EST
                                gmross

                                I understand were you are coming from Jonathan, but, I can't tell you what to expect in the future, my crystal ball doesn't get specific, lol. I can tell you to keep an eye on the GDP over the next few years and on the rate of pay for the average worker, if both go up then there is a good chance that we are coming out of the recession, if both or one (wages) goes down then I'd say there's a good change that the U.S. is done for.

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.11 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:07 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well it was a RANT after all. I know I will be ok, I got more than enough money to retire on.

                                I guess my problem is that we are spending so much time harping about this party that, this president that, and we are completely ignoring the bigger picture, and that is more frustrating than anything. It is amazing how I almost universally piss off both right wingers and left wingers on here lol, though there are far more extreme right wingers to piss off than left wingers so it may seem lopsided.

                                Ahhh maybe I should just become a cat and sleep all day hahaha, I look at my cat and say, wow, what a life, lol.

                                • 5 votes
                                #2.12 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:19 PM EST
                                gmross

                                Yeah, I know what you mean, I don't have enough in retirement to do extra things like eat something other than Raman every day with hotdogs, but, I did just talk with Social Security and they told me that I can work as long as I don't make over a certain amount without effecting my SSDI, and if I see I can work full time again then I can get off of the stuff and get a better paying job, so, I think I'll try it and see if I can go back to work for a while.

                                I see my Doobie laying on the floor asleep and think the same things you do, ahhh what a life. :-) Sending FR.

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.13 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:27 PM EST
                                krounded

                                Nice balanced rant Jonathan.

                                I don't think Dems want to go back to the '70's though. They've been too well corrupted by Republican ideas. Even if that was not so, I doubt any of them would want to go back to a governing style that ushered in the Reagan Revolution :-0! You can't go back no matter how hard you try.

                                Now for the governing...Republicans obviously want to have more of the same that got us into this mess. Dems don't seem to have anything really new to offer except to not do what the Repubs want.

                                I'll focus on getting the economy back to strength. Strip loopholes from the tax code. Lower the tax rate slightly. Return to the days where it was more profitable to leave money in companies rather than take it out. Lower taxes on the corporate side and raise them for individuals making over $250,000/yr. Raise capital gains taxes and lower the amount of time for write off of capital expenditures (if they haven't dropped to 0 already). Companies should staff up.

                                Go through trade policy with a microscope to see where we are getting screwed. Insist trade be done with companies/countries that will follow environmental and wage standards appropriate for safety and growth.

                                Eliminate the cap on Social Security. Means test for Medicare and Social Security.

                                Revisit the Dodd/Frank financial reform bill and give it some teeth. Disallow the kinds of trades that put the economy in the tank. Wall St will think up ways around it, but try. It'll give us a couple of years. Pay and provide proper resources for the SEC and other regulatory bodies. Get rid of stupid regulations. Revisit the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

                                Cut the military budget (mostly on costly equipment) and don't start any more wars for no reason!

                                Focus on health care and what it takes to get costs under control and provide good care, even it if means direct subsidies for health care facilities that do things right. Get insurance companies out of it.

                                Invest in infrastructure that makes sense. Fix these potholes in Chicago, even you have to sell advertising on top of the pot holes to do it.

                                Stop privatizing everything. I've never seen anything with a middle man that costs less.

                                I'll think of more - give me time :-)

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.14 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:10 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well the part about the going back to the 70's is really a lead in to the joke about the republicans wanting to also take us back to the 70's, just the 1870's. It really means that they are statist, thinking that the same ideas that may have been valid back then just aren't workable anymore.

                                SOX should disappear as legislation, though parts of it should still remain. Not all of it is bad.

                                The trade policy isn't something that is easy to work on, considering that it may require opting out of the WTO which means that the world will end up with walls. I think we can accomplish more internally through tax structure changes.

                                And actually right now, it is more profitable to keep the money in the company, but it just goes to M&A which then gets disbursed to shareholders through capital gains, and there we head back into the capital gains rate.

                                The reality though is that overall, our system is not balanced, so our economy becomes dependent on specific economic behaviours. If the tax system were balanced, then it would tend to become more of a 'we do what benefits the company' rather than a follow the bandwagon.

                                I am not overly concerned about the time it takes to write something off, though I don't see a reason why it can't be left up to the company. You get taxed on the sale anyways if you sell the asset for more than its residual value.

                                I know I have this stuff in my head, and have been mulling over this stuff for years, but the fact is, nothing anyone here has said is rocket science. This is stuff that should be basic for the idiots in power. Yet nothing of value is coming from them. I mean, the biggest thing from the obama administration is the payroll tax cut. Like what the @!$%#? That is almost as bad, if not worse, than the bush tax rebates.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.15 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:27 PM EST
                                krounded

                                If the tax system were balanced, then it would tend to become more of a 'we do what benefits the company' rather than a follow the bandwagon.

                                The tax system should benefit groups (like companies) rather than individuals. It should be more profitable to run a business and benefit a community than take the money out and pocket it. This changes as you move down the wage scale.

                                You just can't talk sense to some people. The graph on earnings for the wealthy and middle class means nothing to some. That did not happen by accident, and it's helped no one. Even the wealthy would make more money in a vibrant economy.

                                I'm glad you agree with me on SOX.

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.16 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:45 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well the balance means a balance between consumption and income taxes and user fee's.

                                The tax system should benefit society though.

                                The balance means you don't put too much on income because then you stifle income generation (and wealth) so you spend less because you earn less

                                You don't put too much on consumption, because then you stifle consumption, and income generation is harmed as a result,

                                There is a ying and a yang that needs to generally be balanced, and right now we are out of wack.

                                Our pure focus for the last 30 years on supply side has for example destroyed a lot of the wealth of the middle class, and the inevitable push to get into more debt that has led us to this position that we are.

                                It is really scary to me, it is like we are all a bunch of lemmings about to go off the cliff, and we don't care.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.17 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:51 PM EST
                                krounded

                                I agree with your balance theory. The unbalance has been destructive. But you still can't get a lot of people to see it. How they can think this is the way things should be - is beyond me. It's like people have forgotten years of their lives. (If they are old enough) Every one seems to depend on Fed policy and not even look and the structural problems in the tax code and wealth distribution.

                                I'm afraid that since the younger generations have never known anything but Reaganomics, they have nothing to compare it to. Most people don't notice and don't get into the weeds on what the policy actually is.

                                It does look like lemmings. Don't know where they've been or where they are going. Just SPLAT!

                                Dems have a chance to turn things around if they are elected and grow a pair or two. A Republican Presidency with a Repub House will destroy this country.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.18 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:29 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                well that is the problem, the democrats in congress are just as bad as the republicans, (well not quite as bad as the republicans, but they are useless).

                                It really needs to start from the top though, and even if he knows it wouldn't get passed, Obama needs to start showing some vision. THIS is the biggest disappointment that I have with this administration. I don't mind the deficits, especially during a recession, but I need to see some light at the end of the tunnel, and I don't see that light.

                                • 5 votes
                                #2.19 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:36 PM EST
                                krounded

                                Obama needs to start showing some vision.

                                I think he's become dejected. I hope he gets some MoJo back and does something with it.

                                Obama has done some very good things. But these times need bold action and the Dems need to back up the policies they say they agree with, rather than be afraid of the Conservatives in their districts.

                                Obama is still way better than anyone on the Republican side. I wish he was more of a glad hander sometimes though.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.20 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:57 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well I understand the need for the short term 'stimulus' politically, and with the emotional aspect of it, relating to the willingness to go out and consume, that economic confidence factor, but it really does need to be followed up with a longer term vision. I do like the idea of multiple 'manhattan projects' in different areas, along with the structural changes that will direct the natural economic behaviour in a direction that stimulates a healthy economy. I am not sure if I see that from Obama though because he doesn't really have the 'business' or 'industrial' background to have that vision. His team is more of the same as well. More administrators.

                                Nobody in congress (either party) seems able to articulate such a vision either. Hence the point of the rant. The one thing about this country though, is that out of all the countries in the world, the US does have the most tools to dig itself out of this hole, it is just a matter of using those tools effectively. It just takes a vision for that.

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.21 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:52 AM EST
                                krounded

                                It's hard to have a vision with everyone running around yelling about how "Socialist" or "Fascist" it is.

                                I think polarization in the electorate has stifled vision.

                                • 6 votes
                                #2.22 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:41 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                yeah well the partisan bickering is just getting even more nasty. It is only getting worse too. :(

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.23 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:40 PM EST
                                warrior wheatman

                                And that is why i wish Obama would run independent with a new vision that neither party would voluntarily back. He needed the democrats to get where he is, was respectful with republicans, and did for the democrats what it wanted. Now he can write his own ticket, drop the deadwood, and set us on a path of restructuring government and economy.

                                The core of the world's problem is the cost of living, lack of government transparency and responsiveness, and a beholding to the powers that be. This recession is but an awakening to the beholding; Money owed is to those who had, and are again earning the sweat of our labor.

                                In a healthy economy money needs recirculation. When it gets stuck at the top - in property and commodities (be it cash, gold, or needed resources) - it needs to be dis-inherited. A structural change is needed. Neither party can bring this, they are too stuck with their ideologies.

                                • 4 votes
                                #2.24 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:08 PM EST
                                Alex. CA

                                When can people be still talking about transparency when wikileaks is publishing everything? What will it take to satisfy them??

                                • 3 votes
                                #2.25 - Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:15 AM EST
                                Seriously? No...Really?!

                                @ Alex. CA

                                Because of the fact that it takes Wikileaks to publish the important information! The fact that there's no real investigative journalism anymore and the fact that the MSM is little more than a mouthpiece for the political parties.

                                • 1 vote
                                #2.26 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:10 PM EST
                                Reply
                                MJL-3

                                They need to regulate Out sourcing, way too much of that

                                • 6 votes
                                #3 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:12 PM EST
                                gmross

                                Didn't Obama try to get a bill through congress earlier that would give tax breaks to companie's who kept jobs in the country and tax companies that outsourced them? And didn't the congress reject that bill?

                                • 6 votes
                                #3.1 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:16 PM EST
                                MJL-3

                                Yes, the GOP didn't want it, Do you know Romney does that?

                                • 6 votes
                                #3.2 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:50 PM EST
                                gmross

                                And why didn't the GOP want it? Could it be that if such a bill did pass that two things would have happened? One being President Obama would have gotten credit for bringing jobs back to the U.S. and the second would have been that the GOP would have lost some of their funding for this election. As far as Mitt the Twitt is concerned I think he is still getting money from Bain and if that is true, the gravy train might have ended if the bill had passed.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.3 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:07 AM EST
                                krounded

                                One being President Obama would have gotten credit for bringing jobs back to the U.S. and the second would have been that the GOP would have lost some of their funding for this election.

                                Yes.

                                I guess I forgot to add tax incentives for permanent hiring and education stipends in my previous post. It would tricky to work out because you don't want companies hiring just to layoff 1 year later.

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.4 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:25 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                krounded

                                personally, if I can't justify someone for at least 3 years, then I won't hire, I would rather contract or manage through overtime, though not too much because you need to make sure that you don't overwork. I also generally won't just hire a couple of people either, because the cost of running the recruitment process doesn't make it viable just to hire one or two people.

                                • 2 votes
                                #3.5 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:44 PM EST
                                krounded

                                personally, if I can't justify someone for at least 3 years, then I won't hire,

                                Then you would be perfect for tax break based on employment!

                                But you know there would be some trying to game that system to get the break.

                                • 2 votes
                                #3.6 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:50 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                yeah but you just do the break similar to a reverse depreciation schedule, where the break gradually increases towards the back end of the 3 year time period.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.7 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:56 PM EST
                                krounded

                                I'm not sure what that reverse depreciation level is. Do tell.

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.8 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:08 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                think of the value of a car, the biggest drop is in the first year of ownership, and then it tapers off, to the point where the depreciation generally levels out.

                                Reverse that.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.9 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:15 PM EST
                                krounded

                                Oh wait. I think I get it. Set up the tax break in such a way that it increases as the employee becomes more valuable over time.

                                Is that it? That might place a incentive on keeping a poor employee.

                                • 2 votes
                                #3.10 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:16 PM EST
                                markpup

                                Just because you give increased bonuses over time to encourage retention doesn't mean you have to keep a bad employee. One of my places I contract out to does that and it works great. The management assumes if you're there you're working hard and all the bonuses are paid out on longevity and nothing else so the incentive is very clear.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.11 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:24 PM EST
                                krounded

                                Just trying to think of all the arguments. I can see the benefits. The benefits are the same as always. More experienced people are worth more money and worth the tax break.

                                It also encourages the company to actually give raises over that time (although some will not and just pocket the tax break).

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.12 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:29 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                the employee still needs to provide a return to the company. Lets just say, I wouldn't use a tax break to justify hiring an employee, that is short sighted. The business fundamentals still apply. One amount stated was 9K tax break, well 9K isn't going to make or break anything either way, especially when, at the very least, the desire is to not create minimum wage jobs, but ones that pay far more than minimum wage.

                                • 2 votes
                                #3.13 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:38 PM EST
                                krounded

                                One amount stated was 9K tax break, well 9K isn't going to make or break anything either way, especially when, at the very least, the desire is to not create minimum wage jobs, but ones that pay far more than minimum wage.

                                My work desires to pay as little as possible. My boss would jump at the chance to get 9K for hiring someone, even spread out over 3 years. I think many would jump at 5K.

                                Things must be picking up. I've gotten a lot of recruiter calls. Some are too far away. I don't need another 1.5 hr commute. My opportunity to get into the industry I want to be in went downhill. They put the job on hold for some reason (or at least that's what they told me :-(

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.14 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:25 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                I am not going to refuse it, but I am not going to base a hiring decision on 9K. That is 3K per year which works out to 300 per month (roughing it).

                                What is missing with statements like 'my boss would jump' is the disconnect behind the business need and the incentive. If there isn't a business need, then no incentive is going to get me to hire someone. If there is a business need, then I am going to take every opportunity I can to lower my cost of the hire.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.15 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:47 PM EST
                                krounded

                                What is missing with statements like 'my boss would jump' is the disconnect behind the business need and the incentive.

                                Believe me, we have a need. They've at least doubled orders from 5 years ago. We're down an engineer, a customer service person and more than a few production people. I don't think anyone has gotten raises in that long either.

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.16 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:04 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                and he still hasn't hired?

                                Well no comment on that because that would be a CoH violation towards the decision makers in your company.

                                • 3 votes
                                #3.17 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:07 PM EST
                                krounded

                                and he still hasn't hired?

                                The decision makers have gotten the company through the recession somehow. But the culture there has been really bad up until recently.

                                To be fair, the engineer just left. In part because of the culture. I guess they did hire me though. I'm a little less than a year there.

                                I'm not sure what the hold out is. I think they believe that Lean will make it so they don't have to hire. Unfortunately, sometimes the decision maker's idea of Lean is tearing an old telephone switching box off the wall because he doesn't know what it is for. Luckily, it was not functional. Unfortunately, it ripped up wall and someone had to repair it.

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.18 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:55 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well it could also be what I would use as my benchmark, that is, can we justify the position for 3 years, because of the time it takes for someone to become truly productive, administration costs etc... Right now, with things being so uncertain, that may not be clear yet.

                                • 2 votes
                                #3.19 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 PM EST
                                krounded

                                So I guess I'm reasonably safe for a couple of more years - That is unless my employer is reading this :-)

                                Things are better than they had been in the past. But I always wonder if they will change.

                                • 1 vote
                                #3.20 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:08 PM EST
                                Reply
                                markpup

                                Wow nice article. But when I read the various posts here, I'm concerned that the left is indulging in fantasy and wishful thinking - granted the right is too.

                                The right has their fantasy that if they cut taxes sufficiently especially for the wealthy, that will stimulate the economy so much you'll more than compensate in taxes later. Well - that didn't work. And no one in this life will ever persuade me capital gains taxes should go down for people who essentially produce nothing, but taxes should rise for those of us who earn a wage or run a business.

                                But what does the left do? They develop their own fantasy that if you spend like crazy, that will stimulate the economy so much you'll more than recover it. Some of the posts here are we should spend more on health care and we'll save so much money we'll more than recover the difference. Well - no. Not buying. If you pour more government money in health care, it will cost. And we can't afford it.

                                If we want to have a country for our children, we have to face a strong but difficult transition of huge tax increases and spending cuts and everyone will have to take part in it rich and middle class. Really there's no other way.

                                OK just one more point - I like Obama but not a lot he's very intelligent, hard working and well intentioned but he has no vision and no leadership ability. That's something we really need right now. Of course there's no Republican handy to fill that slot, so I'll vote for Obama again but I really don't see him pulling out of our problems successfully.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:12 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                markpup,

                                Well please don't put me on either side. I am completely disgusted with what the radical 'right' has been doing, but only slightly less disgusted with what the 'left' has been doing. (I put them in quotes because to be honest with you, the terms really honestly don't mean much anymore. Both parties spend for their constituencies, so it isn't a matter of who is proposing reckless spending, because they BOTH are). As for me, I am a business owner, and I look for fiscal responsibility, but also with a big focus on investment, because that is going to drive your wealth generation in the future.

                                Cutting taxes without having a target for those cuts (meaning, we will cut your taxes in exchange for some benefit to society) is pointless. Unless you target the cuts, you are just wasting money. The republicans aren't only interested in tax cuts. They are PERFECTLY fine with rampant spending, as long as it is their constituents that benefit from that spending.

                                The thing about health care, we need to REDUCE our spending on health care, but not by cutting medicare, medicaid and the like. We need to reduce the structural cost of health care delivery. Health care right now is 20% of our economy. That doesn't generate wealth, that just moves it around. And while health care is most definitely necessary, it should not be looked at as a gauge of how well our economy is doing (when the only real growth industries are the financial and health industries, you KNOW you have a problem). Another bellwether indicator that there is a serious problem in the economy.

                                By the way, I like Obama as a person too, and in a different time, I think he would make a fantastic president, he is a statesman in that regards, he is loaded with what I would call personal integrity, but he just seems to be an administrator when it comes to the economy. We need a visionary right now, and I would accept a bit of 'scum' if it meant we had a vision for the economy that would move us forward.

                                By the way, I think that the government is going to have to majorly increase spending to get us out of this. What I fear though is that this spending will end up being more consumption rather than investment. We need the investment.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.1 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:42 PM EST
                                markpup

                                Hi Jonathan - thanks for the thoughtful comment.

                                I don't agree we have to spend our way out. Granted it alleviates a great deal of suffering now, but the return to reality will hurt the longer we wait to face it. We have to seriously cut spending as soon as we can do it and raise taxes - at a minimum roll back the Bush tax cuts and especially get rid of the execrable dividend tax exclusion and the capital gains tax cuts. And if the middle class thinks to just tax the rich and they escape it entirely, that's delusional.

                                And if I think we make balancing the budget that important of a goal, it might be the best stimulus of all. I'm self-employed and I'm not at all inclined to expand or invest in anything because with our out of control economy, there's no future in it.

                                Really - we faced this issue in the mid 90s and got through it and I heard all the rhetoric back then about how bad the economy would suffer and we did fine. Even prospered.

                                Certainly if we really had to make the decision to spend, investment in infrastructure and long-term projects is vastly preferable to what we're doing now which is spending it with no return and no acknowledgement of reality. We needed leadership to make that happen and we just don't have it.

                                I liked your comment you'd accept some 'scum' if we had vision. I remember LBJ and he's really the only president I can remember that had real leadership ability and he wasn't the nicest guy in the patch. I'd be glad to have him back.

                                • 3 votes
                                #4.2 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:02 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Well the spending would be in things that I called 'manhattan projects'. And no it would not be immediate stimulus spending that is largely a bandaid, though I don't have anything against that IF there are the longer term solutions that go along with it.

                                So lets say, the following manhattan projects:

                                1) mission to mars within 20 years (not the 50 years beyond our lives crap that bush I proposed)
                                2) Complete energy independence through a mix of solutions (not just hydrocarbons which is what the policies are now)
                                3) Complete transformation of how we move around, transportation, mix of HSR, revamping automobiles (linked to 2)

                                Now you can argue about the specifics of the specific manhattan projects that I chose, but they are the first 3 that came to mind in the 10 seconds it took to type the 3 out so there could be others (well will be others). One of the requirements of those projects though is that all monies either need to be spent in the US OR need to be matched with spending in the US from the other country (so contracts could go to france (country out of my head), but france would have to spend approximately the same dollar amount in similar work in the US).

                                The reason why I say that we need the government spending is two fold:

                                1) Every other major country is also spending a lot of government money on industrial policy R&D efforts.

                                2) If you look at the history of the US, the largest leaps in economic growth have been as a result of massive government investment, whether it was intentional or not. WWII was a major influence in R&D spending in the aerospace and technology industries, along with post war investments in similar industries that created Boeing as well as all the technology spin-offs from programs like the Apollo program.

                                It is all part of the grand vision thing that I do believe that only the government is capable of coordinating with great effect. Again it is back to the vision thing.

                                The dividend tax credit by the way is there for a good reason, it is so that dividend income isn't double taxed. The company would pay 35% tax on their income, and then the individual would then have to pay the same tax rate on the remainder, for a very high tax rate. As long as the effect is to level out the tax impact, I don't really have an issue with that. The capital gains rate needs to at least be brought to the level of income tax.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.3 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:27 PM EST
                                markpup

                                Hi Jonathan - it's been a while since I've been on here now I remember we've been round on this before.

                                I'm good with your Manhattan projects. But is there anything even remote to the vision out there now for that? No - I especially was hoping when Obama started in 2008 we'd go down some path like that it was the time to do it, but for me expectations went spectacularly short.

                                On a side note, why is taxing dividends double tax? The corporation pays the 35% rate then you pay tax on the dividends which are over and above that so you only paid tax once on a given dollar out. I'd be OK with doing that if there was a cap - say 2000 or something like that certainly not unlimited. Why should someone who inherits or accumulates capital and produces nothing get tax-free dividend income? No one will ever persuade me owning capital is more valuable than producing something.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.4 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:39 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                because the dividend goes as income on the person's income tax return that the dividend is being disbursed to. So the company pays income tax on the earning, then the individual would pay tax on the remainder. The dividend accounting on the individual tax return (I don't do my taxes here in the US, my accountant does so I don't remember the specific terminology) reduces the tax impact of corporate dividends to level that out. It isn't perfect but it largely accomplishes that task. It doesn't remove the tax liability for the dividend, but it lowers it to account for the fact that the company has already paid a part of the tax burden on the earnings.

                                Now the anything even remotely there, THAT is the cruxt of my problem. There is no vision there. I really don't care what party it comes from, but what I want to see is that vision, a vision that thinks beyond the next quarter, beyond the next election etc.. THAT is what government should be for. Not micromanaging the economy, but at least noticing trends and making the changes on the fly that will keep the economy productive for the next generation.

                                Inheritance is another issue, which I didn't touch on, but there should be an inheritance tax, but how that is handled is up for negotiation. I personally like the way it is done in Canada, where assets are deemed to have been transferred at Fair Market Value on the date of death and capital gains taxes being applied on those assets.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.5 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:48 PM EST
                                markpup

                                Hi Jonathan - yeah I agree the inheritance tax should be restored. Forgot that one. I'd also have to put some thought into how we'd do that - the Canadian version looks good but I'd worry if the heirs had a going concern, the capital gains tax could kill the business so there'd have to be some way to make the tax over time or smaller if someone runs a business, but substantive if the amount of money is high and there's no going concern to support.

                                I also agree that even if the Republicans got super good at the "vision thing" I'd be OK with it. As long as *somebody* does it. I seriously don't know why anyone wants to be President or run for high office if a heartfelt desire to lead doesn't come with it. You need to see where you'd like us to be 20, 30 and 50 years from now and lead the ship there - forget about the polls or next week let someone a few levels below you do that.

                                On the dividend being double tax - I might be just not getting it - well for sure I'm not - but I still see by your explanation the dividend only got taxed once. Is dividends disbursed earnings that taxes have been paid on or is it separate? If the first part of this is true, then you're right of course.

                                If that's the case I'd wonder why someone wants to be a corporation. You can set up as a partnership and assign the shares of income to the partners then only get taxed once.

                                • 1 vote
                                #4.6 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:00 AM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                mark

                                the capital gains is on the net profit, so if the company is worth a million dollars, but the investment was 800K, then you would only pay the CG tax on the 200K net value increase.

                                There was a capital gains tax until the early 80's and it was more a pain than gain. The beauty of the Canadian way is that all of the systems that are in place to deal with capital gains through normal business is used for estate handling.

                                Ok, say both the company and the individual getting the dividend are in a 35% tax bracket (or effective taxation).

                                The company earned 100K profit, which is taxed at a 35% tax rate, leaving 65K

                                The 65K net profit is then disbursed as a dividend to the individual.

                                The individual then has to pay 35% income tax on that 65K dividend leaving only 42 250K.

                                This gives you a net taxation of 58%

                                This is why S corps were formed by the way, where the income itself is put on the owners individual tax return.

                                As for why you would want to be a C corp, there are many reasons, but the biggest one is that it legally separates you from the company so that you can use that to encourage outside investment. (This is just a simplistic way of looking at it, there are MANY other factors). For most small businesses though, a C corp doesn't really buy you anything and costs a lot of money.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.7 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:12 AM EST
                                Alex. CA

                                They would say that the government should not get involved in any economic planning, they want the invisible hand of the free market to work to generate healthy economic growth.

                                • 1 vote
                                #4.8 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:34 AM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                Alex

                                Which is a big part of the lack of vision thing.

                                Lets just say, if Paul became president, my bags are packed.

                                • 3 votes
                                #4.9 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:31 AM EST
                                markpup

                                I think we have a spectacular amount of proof that government - which is really fundamentally about protecting us from our worst excesses - is absolutely necessary.

                                I'm so over all the a-bomb sized amount of hot air about free markets while with the other hand legislation comes out in tonnage to protect the market for those able to pay lobbyists to rig the system. Free market's like perfect virtue or perfect wisdom it's just something that will never happen.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.10 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:16 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                extremism, regardless of the particular philosophy, doesn't work. That can be said for communism or facism (the extreme left and right)

                                Free markets at the extreme can't work, but need to be tempered, but that is because no market is truly totally free. There are products that are structural (say electricity) that is something just about everyone has to buy. So on one side of the equation (the consumer), the market isn't free, and can't be free.

                                This is why utilities NEED to be regulated.

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.11 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:30 PM EST
                                markpup

                                Totally agree!!

                                Thomas Paine quote below - granted no one really likes government or regulation and for good reason, but based on who and what we really are, we have to have it the alternative of not having it is a lot worse, not better. And we got a first class lesson these last few years on why that's so.

                                "Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil."

                                • 2 votes
                                #4.12 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:10 PM EST
                                Jonathan-1917156

                                and yes, we need to definitely encourage more intercourse. (yes that was a joke lol).

                                • 1 vote
                                #4.13 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:18 PM EST
                                markpup

                                I think the multi-definition aspect of intercourse existed back in the late 18th century and Paine knew what he was alluding to when he used the word.

                                This last 5 years from our kind and benevolent Wall Street and the Congress they paid off was the kind of intercourse where they use something unnaturally large and stick it far in the most painful places possible - just for their amusement and at our expense.

                                  #4.14 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:11 PM EST
                                  Jonathan-1917156

                                  Well I was working in the financial industry during that time, I honestly don't know how to describe my feelings about it though lol.

                                    #4.15 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:13 PM EST
                                    Dennis in WA

                                    Jonathan:

                                    I much appreciate the article and the constructive discourse - the attempt by all to rise above the petty and the partisan is encouraging! I hope to have time to comment more fully on my impression of the really foundational issues or national (and world) economy face, but to begin a few comments on some of the previous specifics.

                                    I like the general idea of civilian "Manhattan Projects". I would suggest that in many ways and smaller versions, this is how our military has proceeded since WWII. The problem of course being that the intended end result of all that public R & D spending was toward developing things that blow other things up, rather than things that build our nation up. Fortunately, at least some parts of the technologies developed also have constructive uses.

                                    Accordingly, I would suggest that a good place to start addressing the spending side of our fiscal situation would be to redirect a substantial portion of what now goes (and is accounted for in the budget) as "defense", 4.8% of GDP in 2010. Most of our economic competitors (those with fully developed economies, anyway) spend less than 2% of GDP, and as recently as 2001 we were down around 3% ourselves. Within 3-5 years, a reasonable target would be to return to a spending level of say 3-3.5%, and to 2-2.5% within 10 years. One half of the savings to be devoted to deficit reduction, the other half to "Manhattan Project" type ideas, with the federal government being an actual purchaser of products to be developed.

                                    For example, an improved electrical grid, with a goal of reducing transmission losses from around 50% down to 20%, to be both research, developed and purchased with federal dollars. At a smaller level, rather than loan guarantees for private R & D such as Solyndra (which was, despite its failure, the SORT of investment we should be making), how about government contracts to develop AND install small (and large) scale solar systems in federal (state and local) facilities throughout the nation.

                                    With regard to tax policy, my overarching goal would be to reform the tax code assuring first and foremost that income from work is not taxed any more than income from wealth. In doing so, I would first seek to eliminate half of the approximately $1.1t/yr in "tax expenditures", starting with total elimination for preferences for dividend income and capital gains income, and to institute a rational system of inheritance/gift taxation that doesn't permit the winners of the "dead people liked me lottery" to go tax free while the winners of real lotteries (who at least paid for the ticket) get taxed full bore.

                                    Once we get the fiscal situation under control (deficit under, say, 2%GDP/yr), then we could look to apply a portion of further savings from elimination/reform of tax preferences into lower marginal tax rates, while retaining or enhancing overall progressivity in EFFECTIVE tax rates.

                                    (I would disagree with your assessment of dividend tax preferences as justified by the "double taxation" argument for two reasons - first, wages are "double taxed", being subject to both payroll taxes and personal income taxes, and second, the corporate form and corporate shield provides investors legal protections which have value to them - otherwise why incorporate? - and which come at the expense of the population as a whole, by limiting the right of injured parties to be fully compensated. It is fair and reasonable to tax them on this legal benefit.)

                                    Last major point (for now), as you note, health care and its costs must be brought under control. A for profit system of medical insurance, combined with a for profit system of providing medical care, with little (relative to the rest of the developed world) government involvement, has result in by far the most expensive health system in the world. Like "defense", any spending in this regard is not productive to the economy. The best solution must center around establishing a system whereby the vast majority of medical care is provided on a not for profit basis, with non-profit, single payer "insurance". In my view think "VA for all" rather than "Medicare for all". I would expect that this system would be universally available, and paid for by taxes (which in a non-profit world could be done with taxation substantially lower than current medical insurance premiums in aggregate).

                                    Some thoughts on addressing in a long term fashion some of our presently pressing issues. More to follow as time permits on the even bigger issues!

                                      #4.16 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:48 PM EST
                                      Jonathan-1917156

                                      One thing about my 'rant' was that I specifically tried to stay away from 'specific' policy ideas because I wanted to get away with what I felt was the key source for all the animosity, because to me, there are many ways to accomplish the goal, but my problem is that we aren't seeing anything being proposed that is helpful. With many of the GOP presidential candidates stating that we need a 0% capital gains tax rate, that is just making the existing structural problems worse, because it makes real investment in businesses, as opposed to the stock market, much more difficult to justify. I see it now with my business, were I am being taxed more to create/preserve jobs than what I do when I just churn my money on the stock market. (And no, I am not in wall street just to make money, but really just to park my money until our business plans can be finalized). It really is a big problem.

                                      Well the term 'manhattan project' was not meant in any way to imply that it be for making things that will blow each other up, but more as a generic 'concerted effort' type program coordinated by the government. I could say Apollo type project, but I consider the Apollo program to be just such a manhattan project. We need a few of those in different areas. I would be very disheartened if such a thing were directed at a military program, not only because the defence department is already seriously bloated (I would just that budget in half to be honest with you), but because the spinoffs that would come from a military project aren't as deep. It is those spinoffs that would actually drive economic growth more than the 'manhattan project' itself. Not sure what the biggest ticket R&D effort for the US military (stealth) is going to do int he civilian world.

                                      As far as the electrical grid, the losses are a nature of physics. Unless someone discovers room temperature superconductors, the losses just aren't going to be impacted. (I do keep hearing so many people talk about making 200 mpg cars, etc... but the reality is that the physics just aren't there to support those goals, as laudable as they may be.

                                      The wage double taxation isn't really double taxed though, the wages I pay my employee's don't get taxed as income within the company, and the payroll/income taxes are just two separate tax items, it isn't a double taxation. What happens with a dividend is that it is taxed as income by the company, then the remainder is also taxed at the income tax rate for the individual. If both entities are in a 35% effective tax rate (it will never be that rate), then 100,000 dollars in company profit will end up being just over 40K in the hands of the shareholder receiving the dividend. I don't have an issue with a credit on the shareholder's individual tax return to bring that down to a more reasonable level compared to straight income.

                                      As for Capital Gains, that is completely the opposite problem. The rate is less than half that of the highest marginal tax rate, and as such, it actually prevents investment in companies for the purpose of creating jobs. This special capital gains rate needs to be brought back to the same rate as your regular income tax rate. It doesn't need to be higher, it just needs to be treated the same as income.

                                      As for the corporate form, as a director of my company, the 'corporate' shield provides no protection for seizure of my assets (well very little) in the event of wrongdoing. The purpose of the shield is to facilitate non personal investments, so you could invest in my company and the only thing you risk is the amount of money you personally invest. You won't risk your other personal assets because of something that, in this example, I may have done.

                                      Health care is again a really big issue. It to me is actually one of the biggest competitive issues that we face in this country. Coming from Canada, and having looked at the numbers between the two countries, even since we have unleashed ourselves from the shackles of the health insurance industry (we have gone self insured), our costs are STILL significantly higher than they would be if we were in Canada. The other side of that is that the US market is larger, so we have more opportunities here in the US to bring in business. That is just a function of the population difference though. If Canada had 300 million people instead of 35 million, Canada would be a hands down winner cost wise.

                                      I don't think, however, that an out of washington type VA health care system would work though. In Canada, it is the provinces that manage it, using the specific conditions of each province to be tailored by the provincial governments. The federal government just sets basic guidelines that the provinces must follow. I don't think it would work in the US to have a one size fits all system run from washington as each state will have different requirements (the system in Montana would rightfully look different than the system in California for example).

                                        #4.17 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:22 PM EST
                                        Jonathan-1917156

                                        .

                                          #4.18 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:29 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Dennis in WA

                                          I wasn't intending to get so far into the weeds either - merely providing some examples that might illustrate WHY a change of course in certain respects would be beneficial. I did "get" your meaning with respect to the Manhattan Project reference, and think we're generally on the same page there...(I do suspect you're a bit too pessimistic with: "As far as the electrical grid, the losses are a nature of physics. Unless someone discovers room temperature superconductors, the losses just aren't going to be impacted", in that differing materials, already known, conduct electricity differently - developing and/or economizing new and known materials and combinations can potentially make a significant difference - my "goal" percentage was pulled completely from you know where, though! I imagine a 5% loss reduction would be very, very beneficial).

                                          The wage double taxation isn't really double taxed though, the wages I pay my employee's don't get taxed as income within the company

                                          No offense, but I don't care about your company (with respect to this issue only) :). It is double taxed at the employee end. My $10/hr gets payroll taxes taken out first, AND at the end of the year the whole $10 counts toward my personal income tax liability, even though I only saw $9.235 of it (in normal years).

                                          We agree on cap gains...

                                          As for the corporate form, as a director of my company, the 'corporate' shield provides no protection for seizure of my assets (well very little) in the event of wrongdoing.

                                          This may be true (or more closely true) for smaller, S-corp types, etc. but they're not the Fortune 500 companies that more generally pay dividends to shareholders. I don't recall anyone confiscating the non-corporate assets of the board of Enron, for example. Even if the shield were piercable for the directors, the passive investors we agree get the benefit of the shield, and the shield has value to them. The shield is also something our laws give them through our government. Accordingly, they ought to pay us for the privileges we give them.

                                          On health care, again, though I went long, my intent wasn't to get into the weeds, only to suggest that addressing the effects of the "for profit" model on both the insurance and provider ends was necessary to truly get a handle on the whole. The "VA for all" was merely a more on point version of the "Medicare for All" slogan that cropped up during HCR debate - think of it as my "Manhattan Project" shorthand for a non-profit health care and payment system!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#5 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:42 PM EST
                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                          and my dividend payments (if I were to take dividends, I don't but that is a different issue) would get taxed at about 35% at the company level (top marginal rate) and a further 35% at the personal level. At those rates, there is NO incentive at all to invest and create jobs.

                                          I do have to say that we have NO full time employee's that make anywhere near 10 dollars per hour, everyone is paid significantly more. The 10 dollars an hour issue is another pet peeve of mine where we have a situation were we are driving ourselves to the bottom with the end result that we are going to start running out of customers for our products.

                                          I however don't have any ideas how to solve that problem because it is much more of a cultural problem than it is a financial one. We have this culture where it is deemed acceptable to pay a non living wage. Now in your situation, doesn't the EITC mitigate that somewhat?

                                          And you are right the shield is more relevant in the larger companies (We are a C-Corp with just over 200 employees now), but that is the point. If you put in 100K into a company, do you want to put your personal assets at risk if that company does something illegal? Is that going to provide you with an incentive to invest? and if people don't invest in companies, then nobody is going to have a job, and that isn't going to help anyone. The reality is that there needs to be a balance, one that facilitates investment in jobs, but also protects the rights of the people, so that in the end, society benefits. Right now, we don't have a balance, but I won't say that we should go too far in the other direction either, because that will just create other problems.

                                          As far as health care, there is nothing wrong with a for profit system per se, it all depends on how it is managed. Other countries do have a for profit system that manages to cover everyone at a reasonable cost, (australia, switzerland, austria are examples). They are very heavily regulated environments though, and again, there is balance in the rights of the companies providing the product and the consumers of the product. Something that quite frankly does not exist in this country. What is the solution, well it certainly isn't going to be letting things remain the way it is, Health care is more than 20% of our economy now, and that is in my mind rightly described as money down the drain. Health care as a service is necessary, but because it is a 'cost' to support society, it should be considered as such, and costs need to be contained. Unfortunately in the US, it is considered a profit center, so costs are allowed to spiral out of control, but hey, that looks good on the GDP numbers.

                                            #5.1 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:56 PM EST
                                            renee219-2390107

                                            Just a thought here and to be honest it is going to be seen as very controversial, but here goes...

                                            How about we completely remove corporate tax, but at the same time put rules in place which puts limits on the capital a corporation can place into non-working capital investments, for example a corporation would be limited to say 3-5 years of their operating expense to be held in liquid or financial investments. The rest of the money would either have to be reinvested into working capital investments or paid out in dividends which in turn would be taxed as regular income and be the liability of the recipient.

                                            This would eliminate the double taxation problem, encourage reinvesting and expanding the business, while at the same time give a substantial cushion for poor economic conditions. It would also insure that profits are taxed at a fair rate.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #5.2 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:10 AM EST
                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                            renee,

                                            Well considering that institutional financial companies have investments that sometimes run 30 to 50 years, not sure how workable that is.

                                            Canada just puts a capital tax on liquid assets, so there is a different way to do it, but you also don't find Canadian companies making longer term investments either because of this. I would have to think about it more, (too early and I am about to wheel into a meeting -- yeah meetings while I am half asleep, best way to be in one) but it on the surface breaks what I would refer to the need for a balance. It would certainly impact me personally, but I essentially leave my money in my company because that way I don't need to move it back and forth (the 0 corporate tax would negate that though).

                                            Symbolically though, it would be a no go, and the capital gains tax would have to be increased.

                                            By the way, are you aware that there already are IRS rules about leaving money in a company and that they can actually order a company to return money to shareholders (that is why Microsoft was all of a sudden required to start issuing dividends, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was directed to start returning money to shareholders as well).

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #5.3 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:27 AM EST
                                            renee219-2390107

                                            I understand that what I wrote is rather simplistic and there are many areas which would need to be addressed (nothing could be quite that simple LOL). But really if you think about it for institutional financial companies investments are their working capital. There would also be issues with multi-national corporations and how they would be handled, that whole area is a much larger mess than most people realize.

                                            Capital gains should be taxed as regular income.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #5.4 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:45 AM EST
                                            Dennis in WA

                                            and my dividend payments (if I were to take dividends, I don't but that is a different issue) would get taxed at about 35% at the company level (top marginal rate) and a further 35% at the personal level. At those rates, there is NO incentive at all to invest and create jobs.

                                            I assume your firm is a closely held one, and as such would be the unusual exception if your business were taxed at corporate rates. But even if so, as a practical matter, such corporations do not distribute profits to their owners as dividends, but rather as salary/bonus, hence making it tax deductible for the business, and avoiding the potential double tax.

                                            I was only using $10/hr as a simple number - I hope to be able to discuss your remaining point further, as it gets to what I see as the "great big picture". That figure is not representative of my personal situation, I'm far more fortunate, and in fact, get some of the advantages of the really skewed system in particular regards to dividends and LT cap gains (over $10k in so-called "taxable" div/LT cap gains last year on top of something over $100k family wage income, yet $0 tax on the div/LT cap gains). So the changes I am suggesting would be to my personal detriment.

                                            There is perhaps more differentiation in the various corporate structures in terms of taxation/liability than I have been aware, and to the extent that the corporate structure does NOT provide the investor legal protections not afforded to individuals, I could see modifying some my stance on the taxation of dividends. Wouldn't effect folks like me (passive investors) though.

                                            Health Care does need a more thorough restructuring. I read recently about a large union on the East coast that actually operates their own health care system for members, with company "insurance" contributions like most businesses, though substantially lower than with typical 3rd party insurance of like coverage, and salaried medical staff. Broader application of ideas such as this (think HMO without the profit incentive) can go a long way...

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #5.5 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:55 PM EST
                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                            Trying to think of the topic of my next RANT, though everytime I think of something, it tends to be a subject that is prone to the politicing, which is what I wanted to avoid with this (and I think I have largely been successful, though more varied traffic would have been nice lol).

                                            As for my company, it is closely held, myself, my business partner, and his wife). It is a C corp (same as say GE) because when we formed our company 20 years ago, I was not a permanent resident, and am now not a permanent resident (I am in on an E visa at the moment) so an S corp is not an option, and I don't believe an LLC would be an option either, but we have no reason to change now anyways so haven't looked at it. Our profits are at the highest corporate bracket (didn't even know that there were corporate brackets until last year actually, though I don't do the taxes anyways), but our taxable profit isn't our total profit (we have made some substantial investments since we bought our current operation a few years back so we have some significant write-offs).

                                            As for me personally, I don't pay myself in dividends because of a court decision in a relation split and how my income needs to be distributed to me for the purposes of calculating my support payments. When that is done with (hopefully this year, I will be able to look at things again)

                                            What we don't have however is an offshore entity where we can shift profits too so we tend to get hit hard, and that is another one of my pet peeves (Transfer Pricing).

                                            The removing the tax deduction for dividends would affect you though, it would basically shift the direction more to the capital gains side, and what I think we need is to shift the focus from capital gains (which has led to essentially just churning money on wall street) to one that encourages income from investments, so removing the individual dividend deduction/credit would negate any increase in the capital gains tax rate (I think all capital gains should be treated as income).

                                            I don't look at this from a personal view, because quite frankly it doesn't bother me. I could pay myself a lot more than I do, but choose not to because I want to leave the money in my company for reinvestment. Now for me, that is because I have a business objective, not a financial one, not everyone is going to have that same view, hence I do try to look at it from a 'general' perspective.

                                            With regards to the wage that you may or may not receive, what I do believe is that we need to start looking at raising peoples incomes, not through some welfare scheme, but though increased value in the products that our economy produces. We need to move away from pushing for walmart and mcdonalds jobs, and move towards more and more high end boeing, apple type jobs. That will not only increase tax revenues, but it will also reduce government expenditures as the social assistance programs like food stamps won't be drawn upon as much. (I have an issue with food stamps, but won't get into that here).

                                            Health care needs to be blown up, but there are many ways to rebuild it.

                                              #5.6 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:02 PM EST
                                              Jonathan-1917156

                                              My biggest problem though is that we really aren't seeing anything but short term band-aid solutions, we have reaction rather than proaction, and that is frustrating, because out of all the 'agencies' of our society, the government is really the only one that has the ability to think long term from a macro perspective, and all we are seeing from government is 'how to win the next election'. Both sides are guilty of that and our nation is most definitely not being served by it.

                                              Even if I disagreed with the direction, I could at least have some feeling of a direction, but we really aren't seeing anything but short term thinking.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #5.7 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:31 PM EST
                                              Dennis in WA

                                              what I do believe is that we need to start looking at raising peoples incomes, not through some welfare scheme, but though increased value in the products that our economy produces. We need to move away from pushing for walmart and mcdonalds jobs, and move towards more and more high end boeing, apple type jobs

                                              This goal, which I think most from any political persuasion would agree upon, and how (if even possible) governmental policy might move us in that direction, is actually the fundamental discussion that should be taking place.

                                              In order to do so, we have to come to a better understanding about many of the WHYS behind the observable truth that a greater and greater share of the benefits from economies throughout the world are winding up in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I would suggest that at the heart of this dilemna is a certain amount of fundamental economics - unregulated free market economics favors capital over labor. I would suggest this is the case because no free market is perfectly efficient, and in terms of pure economic efficiency, capital has huge advantages over labor.

                                              For example, consider the complexities/difficulties/costs associated with a skilled auto worker in Detroit with 20 years experience at Ford or GM, who may be downsized (for perfectly legitimate competitive reasons). It may be true that opportunities for gainful employment in their field of expertise are available, at, say, a Toyota plant in Kentucky (though most probably at a lower wage and with lesser benefits). Just how difficult and expensive it would be for that worker to avail themselves of that opportunity - the simple logistics of finding out about the opportunity, applying for and interviewing for the position, relocating to a new state, selling the home they purchased 10-15 years ago (in what is probably the worst real estate market in the country). The information gap and transaction costs influencing how the providers of labor may redirect their resource (labor) makes doing so highly inefficient in economic terms.

                                              Compare this to what it takes to reallocate capital. An investor in GM can nearly instaneously sell their stock, at almost zero transaction fee (though perhaps creating taxable income - but also potentially creating a tax benefit), and reallocate that capital to Toyota (or Goldman Sachs or Starbucks or what have you), making that decision with massive amounts of freely available and readily accessible information, and again with almost zero transaction costs.

                                              Obviously, reallocation of physical capital includes far more complexities (and therefore economic inefficiencies), and certainly while in some respects the application of technology benefits capital by reducing the amount of labor necessary to produce goods and services, it can also benefit labor by enabling (a relatively small proportion of) labor to provide their labor irrespective of physical location. But OVERALL, capital markets are far, far more economic efficient than labor markets.

                                              So I would suggest that fundamental economics that no one can change under a reasonably capitalist model are the underlying cause of the income distribution issues.

                                              I don't believe that we either can or should attempt to undo these fundamentals by governmental policy. But in the status quo of the governmental policies of the US and most other advanced countries actually are themselves biased toward capital over labor.

                                              It should be self-evident that this is counterproductive, given that (I believe) we agree that, in the long run for economy to thrive, our businesses must thrive, and for our businesses to thrive the real job creators - CONSUMERS - must thrive.

                                              It is through this prism that I view government policy. In my view, all governmental action of necessity influences the balance of the markets. Since all markets are, to one degree or another, inefficient, I do not see this an inherently bad thing, PROVIDED, however, that government policy should consistently bias in favor of those areas where the unregulate free market is less efficient. For example, I believe tax policy overall should be biased in favor of labor compared to capital. And the tax code should be biased toward physical capital compared to financial capital.

                                              We can (and will) continue to disagree on the DEGREE to which government policy should influence the economy, but hopefully we can move toward on a consensus on the DIRECTION it should be pointing.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #5.8 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:28 PM EST
                                              Dennis in WA

                                              The removing the tax deduction for dividends would affect you though, it would basically shift the direction more to the capital gains side, and what I think we need is to shift the focus from capital gains (which has led to essentially just churning money on wall street) to one that encourages income from investments, so removing the individual dividend deduction/credit would negate any increase in the capital gains tax rate (I think all capital gains should be treated as income).

                                              I don't see why an equal change in the tax treatment of dividends and capital gains (to treating both the same as wage income) would be biased in favor of capital gains versus dividends. Perhaps what you are considering is the degree to which, by treating the two equally, a financial investor has no incentive to keep their money in a particular business over time. I think a more constructive solution, and one fitting within the framework I outlined above, would be for the imposition of a financial transactions tax, as is currently generating significant interest in Europe.

                                              In this scenario, financial capital would be taxed at the highest rates (both personal income and financial transactions - to the extent capital gains due to retained corporate earnings they are also subject to corporate income taxes as well), dividend income taxed at next highest (exempt from financial transaction tax, but subject to corporate income taxes and personal income taxes), and labor at the lowest (personal income taxes, and payroll taxes that should be at lower effective rates than the effective rate on corporate income).

                                              A side detail or two on our prior discussions regarding taxation of dividends. First I would note that it is the effective corporate tax rate that is at issue with respect to the potential for double taxation of dividends, not the marginal rate. As you noted, your own company's taxable income is significantly lower than its actual income, and this is almost universally the case. Despite the nominal 35% corporate tax rate, the studies I've seen reports of suggest that publically traded corporations, in the aggregate, pay an effective tax rate of something under 20% based on reported profits (17-19% are numbers I've seen). If we apply the 20% as the aggregate, what we find is that under the status quo, all in, at every level of income dividends (considering corporate and personal) are taxed at lower rates than wages (payroll and personal income taxes).

                                              Given both the economic fundamentals, and the economic distortions to pure free markets due to the liability limitations of the corporate form, I believe that dividends should be taxed in total at rates higher than wages. Whether that result is achieved within a system whereby corporate income taxes are reformed so that the nominal rate can be reduced to, say 20%, while retaining an approximately equal effective tax rate to the status quo, or even revised further downward (by, for example, perhaps using some portion of the revenue from a financial transactions tax to reduce direct corporate rates), I would find to be fair game for further discussion/refinement.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #5.9 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:50 PM EST
                                              Jonathan-1917156

                                              The reason why I didn't state effective rate is because the effective rate changes. Facebook and google for example have an effective tax rate of about 3%, my company significantly higher. That has to do with transfer pricing, and that is a whole different issue.

                                              Capital gains on the sale of stock however leads to NO tax impact on the company, it is all on the person buying and selling the stock. Also, while I don't believe that the dividend treatment on personal income taxes is perfect (it doesn't account for the different effective rates), it does serve to equalize the treatment vis a vis the current treatment of capital gains. Now if only capital gains would increase to straight income, then I could financially justify investing in my own company, and find it easier to get outside investors, which I can't right now because they ALL pretty much say that they can make more money on wall street flipping financial securities. And I can't argue with that, because they can. I know they can, because I myself have a higher net return with my stock market activity. Actually IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE.

                                              As for government policy, while I do not agree with the idea that we can restrict certain activities, I do think that we CAN encourage certain types of activities over other types. The current system of extremely low capital gains tax rates has encouraged stock market capital gains activities (M&A, shareholder value etc...) over income activities. This is a distortion that is longer term unhealthy.

                                              As far as the 'corporate liability' distortion, I still have no clue what exactly is the problem to you. The reality is that removing the limited liability is only going to destroy the incentive to invest. As far as dividends being taxed higher than income, well that will also do nothing but discourage the incentive to invest. If your desire is to not have any future economic growth, then you will accomplish just that. It isn't a balance, it is a complete swing to the other side creating its own problems.

                                                #5.10 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:25 PM EST
                                                Dennis in WA

                                                Facebook and google for example have an effective tax rate of about 3%, my company significantly higher.

                                                Right, but it is the effective tax rate that matters with respect to any potential double taxation of corporate earnings - whether that is realized by the investor in the form of dividends or capital gains is immaterial, in BOTH cases. NEITHER the sale of stock by investors NOR the issuance of dividends by a corporation, effects the corporation's bottom line/tax burden. Also, BOTH dividend income and income from the capital gains from the sale of stock are AFTER corporate income taxes are applied to the earnings of the corporation, so I would disagree with your suggestion that the two are radically different, in terms of the taxation of corporations, and the income derived from corporations.

                                                Also, I mentioned that a reform or corporate income tax policy was certainly a reasonable goal, in order to remove the differences between treatment of like levels of profit, it would be more economically efficient if, in order to achieve an effective tax rate of 17-20% that the marginal tax rate be closer to that same percentage, so economic activity would be directed toward the most profitable investments, whatever they may be, rather than chasing tax incentives.

                                                ALL pretty much say that they can make more money on wall street flipping financial securities

                                                As I suggest, this is due to the greater economic efficiency of the financial markets for capital, versus the tangible/physical capital. A financial transactions tax would seem to address your concerns regarding churning of capital in financial transactions versus real investments in real production, without adding a bias of favorable tax treatment for income from either form of capital over income from labor.

                                                As for government policy, while I do not agree with the idea that we can restrict certain activities, I do think that we CAN encourage certain types of activities over other types

                                                I actually wasn't suggesting either specifically, only noting that ALL government involvement influences the economy, it can be positive (proactive, encouraging) or negative (restrictive), and depending on the circumstances, each can be appropriate for addressing economic inefficiencies in an unregulated marketplace.

                                                Government can proactively provide educational, training and relocation assistance to labor, or create infrastructure or basic research that might positively benefit business, or it can gather and/or require the dissemination of information (hence improving economic efficiency), or it can restrict business activities that would tend to result in damages for which no remediation is possible, or for which recompense would be unavailable to those damaged. All CAN be appropriate rolls for government policy.

                                                As far as the 'corporate liability' distortion, I still have no clue what exactly is the problem to you. The reality is that removing the limited liability is only going to destroy the incentive to invest

                                                You misunderstand my intent. I have no intent to remove the corporate (and other) liability distortions, as I recognize that (at some level at least) they are essential to the ability to form the capital required in a modern economy for many sorts of businesses to effectively and efficiently compete. My highlight of the issue is not to argue for its elimination, but rather to suggest that we recognize that this a) DOES create distortions of the market in favor of capital, and b) the financial benefits of those distortions go to the holders of capital, that c) it is therefore not unreasonable that, corporate income should be subject to taxation at the corporate level AND at the personal level upon its distribution, as recompense for the benefits to capital bestowed by the government's sanction of the limitation.

                                                As far as dividends being taxed higher than income, well that will also do nothing but discourage the incentive to invest. If your desire is to not have any future economic growth, then you will accomplish just that. It isn't a balance, it is a complete swing to the other side creating its own problems.

                                                I disagree. Taxing income from capital at higher rates than income from wages will remove the present distortion of taxing capital at lower rates wages. We could move to a system that merely treats all income from all sources equally, which would at least remove that distortion, but that would fail to consider or address the fundamental economic problems faced by labor generally as opposed to capital - if you disagree with my analysis on the broader framework, explaining where we differ may help us come to consensus.

                                                Yes, taxing capital at higher rates than presently would reduce (not "destroy") incentives to invest - but we do not have a shortage of capital, we have a shortage of demand, and incentivizing the formation of capital will do nothing to address the underlying issues. I would suggest that a significant underlying factor in the boom and bust (dot.com, real estate) economies of the last 10-15 years can be traced to an excess of capital, with corresponding reductions in the returns from capital, chasing higher returns through riskier and riskier speculation (not investment). Maintain a tax preference for income from capital will only (as it already has) exacerbate the problems, for example, of income inequality, and the long-term destructive effects of this on demand, and therefore the long-term negative for the gross returns that one might gain from investing capital.

                                                Perhaps I was mistaken in my presumption that you broadly agree with this premise:

                                                It should be self-evident that this is counterproductive, given that (I believe) we agree that, in the long run for economy to thrive, our businesses must thrive, and for our businesses to thrive the real job creators - CONSUMERS - must thrive.

                                                If so, perhaps you could correct my misunderstanding so that I might better understand the direction from which your policy prescriptions originate.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #5.11 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:19 PM EST
                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                ok, not sure if you get this, my and my business partner sold our previous business a few years ago, as a result, we have a TON of capital sitting there (we are one of those companies that has a ton of money that we are not doing anything with). Because of the tax disparity between capital gains and dividend income, we make LESS money on our stock market investments BEFORE tax, but we make MORE MONEY NET because of the tax rate difference. That difference is more than 10% based on our company not having an international presence that allows us to shift profits.

                                                In other words, the flat out fact is that the current tax system DISCOURAGES us from making real investments that create jobs. It DISCOURAGES anyone that we are trying to attract to invest in our business plans specifically because the tax disparity between capital gains and dividend tax exists. The DOUBLE taxation of dividends makes that problem even worse. That is the reality for a business venture that is trying to attract investors.

                                                I am not sure how much clearer that can be made.

                                                As far as the demand, the reason why why have a shortage of demand is because over the last 30 years, we have created far too many disincentives in the creation of investments that create jobs (seriously, it really is THAT much of a difference) that we now have a situation where the population is not making enough money to buy those products. At some point we need to create NEW OPPORTUNITIES, NEW INDUSTRIES, not rely on the existing ones, we need NEW business. That means that companies are going to have to take risks. Not all of them will be successful, but that is the nature of taking risks. To overly penalize these people that invest in this manner by double taxing dividends just makes it harder to create the right environment to reverse the trend that has been going on for the last 30 years.

                                                As for the consumer part of things, I agree, we need to stop this trend of creating minimum wage jobs, what I don't agree with is this attitude that we can just penalize people who will have the opportunity to create those jobs and expect it to happen. My double taxing dividends, all you end up doing is creating the scenario where companies will shift their profits to other entities, and because that involves offshoring, it basically means killing jobs. With my company, I can completely shift all my production elsewhere if I wanted to, turn the business into one that doesn't actually earn income but only capital gains. Why don't I do it, because that is just a short term blip, but preventing me from taking a credit to reduce my dividend income tax liability (not remove it, just reduce it) just makes it less likely that the average business person is going to give a rats ass about jobs here.

                                                AGAIN, is that perfect, NO, but nothing ever is perfect. Are the effective rates the same for every company? no, they aren't, they vary for every company. (quite frankly why we are arguing about a dividend tax credit befuddles me because the transfer pricing issue is a FAR larger issue than the dividend tax credit is, because transfer pricing is what allows a company to reduce its tax liability to close to 0).

                                                  #5.12 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:39 PM EST
                                                  Dennis in WA

                                                  Because of the tax disparity between capital gains and dividend income, we make LESS money on our stock market investments BEFORE tax, but we make MORE MONEY NET because of the tax rate difference.

                                                  What tax disparity? Presently income from long term capital gains and income from dividends is treated the same (preferentially - max. 15%) Again, perhaps there is something relatively unique, or at least uncommon in your particular situation that isn't the norm, and therefore not quite applicable to the overall discussion of federal tax policy. I'm not a corporate tax accountant/lawyer, but as I noted before, I am aware of no reason why you and your partners could not simply distribute corporate income as wages/bonuses instead of dividends, thereby reducing your corporate tax liability, and completely avoiding ANY "double taxation" (though, of course, you could not avail yourselves of the current PREFERENTIAL rate for dividends over wages).

                                                  In short, it seems to me you are trying to create a distinction in the the taxation of corporations as impacts their owners between the distribition of corporate income as dividends, versus the capital gains that the owners will realize upon sale that will include retained, taxed corporate profits, that simply does not exist. The profits of corporations are taxed. The profits that remain after tax are either retained (and hence add to the capital of the company, creating a capital gain - though unrealized until sale) or distributed as dividends. The tax on the corporation is the same either way, and the tax rate on the individual realizing the profit (whether received as dividends or capital gains) is taxed personally the same.

                                                  You have mentioned "transfer pricing" a couple of times - perhaps a further description of what you mean with this phrase and how you feel it plays into the cap gains vs. dividends discussion would be helpful in clarifying for me your argument.

                                                  As far as the demand, the reason why why have a shortage of demand is because over the last 30 years, we have created far too many disincentives in the creation of investments that create jobs (seriously, it really is THAT much of a difference) that we now have a situation where the population is not making enough money to buy those products

                                                  But this view looks at things only from the supply side - the last 30 years of policy have been directed toward providing additional incentives for the formation of capital, and as you note, have not resulted in productive investments - it is the policies over those years that bias toward the supply side that INCREASE incentives for unproductive churning of financial capital versus long term, buy and hold investing in business opportunities that provide income from profits.

                                                  A tax regime which taxes financial transactions (and not business income, nor distributions of dividends, nor capital gains) would reduce the incentives for capital to move from speculative venture to speculative venture. In your personal situation, it would make stock market investments less attractive than presently (although, again, I don't think the status quo tax situation has the impacts you suggest it does). The financial transaction tax would encourage investing in opportunities with long term potential over short term, making a fast buck. As would eliminating the preferences for removing capital from enterprises by distributing it as dividends.

                                                  In short, I would argue that the situation we find ourselves in today is in part the direct result of the sort of capital-biased policies that you are unwilling to let go of.

                                                  Your responses repeatedly use the work "penalize", but I'm not talking about "penalizing" anyone - that is misplaced rhetoric. We have to have taxes at some level (what level we can surely disagree on). In order to raise taxes, we have to tax someone or something. The mere fact of taxation is not "penalizing" anyone. The question is how we structure the system of taxation.

                                                  You are arguing for a system of taxation that PREFERENCES income from capital distributed in the form of dividends in comparison to income from work (and from income derived from capital realized in the form of capital gains). I have discussed why I find that to be both economically the reverse of any biases that should exist in the tax code, and completely counterproductive in achieving one of the things we agree is a desirable result - reversing the trend toward greater and greater income inequality. In this limited respect (there is much else upon which we agree, lest we forget!), you are essentially proposing more trickle down policies, that you hope will generate capital investment in more productive endeavors, which you hope will provide higher income job opportunities for American workers - it hasn't worked out that way over the last 30 years.

                                                  My double taxing dividends, all you end up doing is creating the scenario where companies will shift their profits to other entities, and because that involves offshoring, it basically means killing jobs. With my company, I can completely shift all my production

                                                  This legitimate concern allows me to clarify that, ultimately, I recognize the unintended consequences of any government policy needs to be considered. My prescription with respect to what would be an economically more sensible tax regime (for example) is somewhat theoretical, and can only work in practice if we address another core cause of the increasing income inequality. This being a worldwide "race to the bottom", with enough governments seeking to attract business investment with damaging lax environmental or labor regulations, and tax regimes favoring capital over labor, with enough impoverished workers who would gladly (and in their own interest) accept half or less of what an American worker can live on.

                                                  The policies that I've mentioned so far do not address these additional real world fundamental problems - nor do yours. Although you can argue that, on a relative basis, your policies might keep the US closer to being competitive in the "race to the bottom", they are nonetheless continuing to compete in that race, and until we sink to the level of the least common denominator, we're going to continue going down hill until we address these realities as well.

                                                  This issue certainly has no easy solutions, but I would suggest that our efforts should be toward raising the standards in the rest of the world (not least because higher incomes in lesser developed nations provides potential markets for goods/services produced as a result of American labor/capital), rather than simply capitulating, which we do in essence when we say "we can't change how we favor capital because everyone else is doing it". Thoughts on how we might move toward achieving this objective (assuming you generally agree)?

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #5.13 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:45 PM EST
                                                  johny-388777

                                                  This is one commical seed.

                                                  The only reason the country is in a mess is because the criminals got away with so much and the SEC,OCC, DOJ, others was bought out thats all. They simply got away with fraud.

                                                  Then your figures about hiring someone just don't add up.

                                                  GM failed because they were paying the top 1% around 35% of the revenue. THe competition pay less . In the case of the germans and japanese makers they pay as little as 5%.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #5.14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:09 PM EST
                                                  Reply
                                                  Jonathan-1917156

                                                  I am not sure what you think my policies mention, because ALL I have said is that the system today is skewed and the extreme low capital gains tax rate compared to the dividend tax rate is largely the cause. My references to this ONLY cover income taxes. A transaction tax is a whole different can of worms, of which I have no real opinion about either way. It would depend on how the transaction tax is implemented. If it is per transaction, then all it will do is create the situation where institutional investors do what they do now, and retail investors will be blocked. That on the surface really isn't advisable because it would still allow the large institutional investors to have far too much influence in the market (not even sure how you would implement it per transaction fairly because of the mechanics of how trades are made in the stock market).

                                                  Now MY company's personal situation does not affect us personally. It affects our ability to gain investors for our business objectives. We as a company cannot give an investor a salary unless they are actually employee's of the company. So if you invest 100K into my company through equity (debt is a different game where you don't have capital gains, you have income), you aren't an employee in the company, and you have two ways which you can earn income from that investment:

                                                  1) Dividend

                                                  2) Capital Gains through the sale of the shares purchased through that investment.

                                                  Through that dividend, the company pays income tax on the income of the company, then the dividend is disbursed on the remainder, which you then pay income tax on your dividend.

                                                  The other way is to ramp up the price of the shares and sell those at a profit (to yourself), the company still only has the 100K, but the market may have pumped the value of those shares higher (or lower) than your investment. You sell those shares, and you pay capital gains on your profit. That profit is pure profit to you. It does the company no good whatsoever, though the company hasn't paid any tax on it either.

                                                  While on the surface, this may not sound all that important a difference, but the reality is that companies have SHIFTED their business practices to generate capital gains rather than income. Do people not ask why GE's financial division is the largest of their 5 major divisions? GE doesn't need to make jet engines anymore, they don't need to. For all GE cares, they can just market P&W jet engines and still make the same amount of money. Why? because GE has changed their business to focus on taking advantage of transfer pricing and also to focus on capital gains (shareholder value is the PC term, whenever you hear the term shareholder value, it is capital gains income that they are referring to).

                                                  You mention the bubbles that have happened in the past, and if you actually look at it from the financial industry perspective, it is because of what I am saying that those bubbles have been created. Does anyone think that the .COM's were about making investment income? NO, it was all about building a company, more often than not without an income model, and selling the company to the highest bidder. THAT IS CAPITAL GAINS. The whole thing about the derivatives market is that you essentially launder money from being investment income and turn it into capital gains when run through hedge funds. pretty much the ENTIRE industry right now is driving profits into tax advantageous structures.

                                                  Now, I have NOT, in any way said that dividend income should not be taxed, all I have stated is that the removal of the credits for dividend income is NOT a wise thing to do, because what I believe is that we need to move our investment focus from 'capital gains' into 'investment income' because that will create a longer term outlook. Today the attitude is 'I don't really care about putting the company into debt because I will be selling my shares for capital gains' whereas we should have an attitude of 'I don't want the company I have invested in to not invest in its future because that is my income stream'. That is ALL I have stated. I don't understand why that doesn't come across.

                                                  As far as my company is concerned, I really don't care. I don't pay myself dividend income and the IRS right now, with the current amount that I pay myself, won't let me. They have actually penalized my company for NOT paying myself more. What my concern is when we try to market the company for investment for our future business plans, we constantly get the question, 'why should we invest in you when we can invest in this other opportunity'. Having spent a decade in the financial industry, I know EXACTLY what they are talking about. Making those silent investors (ones with no day to day activity in the company, not employee's etc..) personally liable for anything that my company may do beyond the investment itself will just discourage them from investing further.

                                                  I don't know why you think my policies continue the race to the bottom though. Based on that comment, I think you have COMPLETELY misinterpreted ALL of my comments, and I have NO clue how I can change that, other than to say, please reread my comments over again. It is because the capital gains rate is so low that is causing the race to the bottom, which is WHY I want them to be leveled to the normal income tax rate, but that also means that I don't want the EFFECTIVE dividend tax rate to be increase to something that is higher than the effective tax rate either, which is what would happen if you took away the personal dividend income treatment.

                                                  Hell maybe I should become a heartless mother@!$%#er capitalist and only concern myself with my own profit rather than the health of my company. At least then people won't misinterpret what I do.

                                                    #6 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:37 PM EST
                                                    warrior wheatman

                                                    @ Jonathan

                                                    I love this debate; learning a lot. But please explain 'transfer pricing', you've mentioned it several times.

                                                    Also, 'silent investor'. Sounds like a company executive getting preferential shares, rather than buying them on the open market.

                                                      #6.1 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:43 AM EST
                                                      Jonathan-1917156

                                                      Silent investor is just someone who is buying equity in a company but does not have an involvement in the company's operations.

                                                      Transfer pricing is a bit more complicated but here goes, and I will use the GE Jet engine example as that can be used to show what happens, but also how it can be abused.

                                                      GE, among other things, manufactures jet engines. Lets say a jet engine is priced at 1 million dollars, with a 200K profit. When selling a jet engine to a domestic customer, say boeing, that is easy to figure out profits for tax purposes (well easy in this example lol). That is the company will get taxed on 200K profit.

                                                      Now take the example of selling that same engine to Airbus. So GE sets up a company in the UK (most of the time it is ireland actually but that is so they can do what is called a double dutch but I won't get into that). Now GE United Kingdom company in the UK will buy that engine and then sell it to Airbus.

                                                      Transfer pricing is the determination of how much that UK division will buy that engine for in order to resell it. When it is a tangible good, such as a physical jet engine, the IRS has rules as to what cost the good will be transferred and at what cost. (lets say, split profit down the middle to make it easy). So now GE is basically taxed on 100K profit US, 100K UK.

                                                      However, when the good is not a tangible good, lets say GE is going to lease that engine, what GE is now selling is not a jet engine, but a financial product. There is now no longer a way to derive a profit on the good itself, but only on the annual amount received for the lease. So now GE is selling the engine to itself, and then leasing the engine to the UK company. Unfortunately, no one has figured out how to determine the rules for transfer pricing in this instance, so GE can sell the engine to itself at 200K profit, BUT it can now lease the engine to the UK division at a LOSS, so the US division now loses money NET and all the profits are coming into the UK company.

                                                      Why does this matter? Well profits from that UK company are taxed at UK tax rates and unless GE actually brings that money back into the US (repatriates), the profits in question will never be taxed by the IRS. Companies right now basically refuse to bring that money back unless the government will not tax those profits.

                                                      I used UK for no other reason than I am a citizen of the UK lol. In reality the UK tax rate is no advantage for GE, however Ireland does have a much lower tax rate and from there, you can use a tax trick called double dutch which is basically routing your profits through a third country, such as holland (hence the dutch) to bring your tax rate down to 0, so as long as you don't repatriate the money, it will never be taxed by the IRS.

                                                      This why GE in the last year, had something like 15 billion dollars in profit, but only 4 billion of it was taxable in the US, the rest of it was overseas profits. Of that 4 billion, enough losses from 2008 were still unused that they were able to bring their tax bill down to 0. The problem is that alot of that 11 billion overseas profit was derived from US business, but because of the transfer pricing, isn't being taxed.

                                                      This can be done for other 'non tangible' assets as well. There is a pharmaceutical company for example that does NO business in europe, but has transferred the ownership of their drug patents to a company in europe, and charges such a high 'royalty' to the parent company that the american company makes no profit.

                                                      Now you may ask, how does that help the investor because they can't issue a dividend? well the stock market today is largely focussed on 'shareholder value' which means 'stock price'. The profits that are being held in the foreign nation do go on the annual reports as a separate line item, so the amount IS being accounted for in the stock price, which keeps the stock market happy.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #6.2 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:36 AM EST
                                                      warrior wheatman

                                                      That was a wonderful explanation. That patent sale to an artificial subsidiary which then charges a lot for its use by the parent company is one that has been going on for a while, and I feel is criminal intent. Also, the splitting and then re-merging (causing account holders to have to refer to another company by the exact same name in a different state) smells similarly bad. Giving local tax credit for potential jobs is one thing, but the IRS (thus legislature) should be held liable for loopholes.

                                                      Silent investor is just someone who is buying equity in a company but does not have an involvement in the company's operations.

                                                      I presume you're talking about a private or non-publicly traded company?

                                                        #6.3 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:48 PM EST
                                                        Jonathan-1917156

                                                        Yeah, basically any investment on the stock market would essentially be a 'silent' investor, but a private investment may be either a silent or non silent investor. It isn't an official term, but is a general colloquial term for an investor that doesn't play a role in the day to day operations of a company.

                                                        In the case of my company, there is me, and my business partner, though I also consider his wife as the third 'partner' and the three of us essentially run our company. We bought this company a few years ago, but previously, our business was from an ownership perspective the same, however I did not play a role in the company, so I was a 'silent' investor (I had my own consulting business).

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #6.4 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:02 PM EST
                                                        warrior wheatman

                                                        So I presume you to mean that you bought stock (they needed money) in a private or pre-public company -- Unless it is a IPO, the company gains only the share value increase when stock is bought publicly.

                                                        I know there are deals made privately in public companies and corporations, as attraction for executive talent. I think the law pretty much delineated what those shares should be valued at.

                                                        Thanks for the response.

                                                        Now on another matter, I'm surprised you haven't come out in favor of Transaction Tax. It would hardly impact long term investors, yet it would slow the financial gambling aspect. Prices would increase slightly, but the nation would be much more stable. Banks and stock-market already finance themselves by charging such a fee.

                                                          #6.5 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:17 AM EST
                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                          Well with my company, my business partner needed money to be able to buy the planes he needed to start up the business, so 3 people other than my business partners family put in money, of which I was one. So my money, along with the other two were invested in exchange for shares. Each share is with a defined amount of equity in the company. Now with a private investment (that being not on the stock market), the investment is generally harder to sell, which means that it is not liquid. When the other two partners were bought out (which happened about 10 years ago), the value of the shares was determined by the book value, plus there was a certain amount of goodwill that was attached to them, but that was negotiated when they were bought out.

                                                          In terms of the capital gains, it is the realized value minus the invested value that is used to determine what the capital gains tax is applied to.

                                                          As for an IPO, if we were to do that (we don't have the value right now to do that by the way), then what would probably happen is that our current two classes of shares (my shares are one class, my business partners shares are another class, and we did that so he could issue himself a dividend without issuing me a dividend and vice versa) would be reorganized as a number of shares of the issued stock, and then we would issue additional shares of new stock to be floated on an exchange. For our business, the NYSE would probably be the better exchange in the US to trade our shares on, but we would need to be worth probably 5 to 10 times more before we can do that.

                                                          In order to list, there are some pretty strict requirements, which makes it such that the stock market really isn't a way to raise money anymore, but for a Private equity or Venture Capital firm to realize their investment and cash out the investment.

                                                          As for a transaction tax, I don't really think it would make much of a difference, but I am not against it. I would just be worried though that it would severely impact the retail trader (the average person) who really don't create enough sales volume to artificially impact share price and it would do nothing to stop the institutional investor (hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds etc... ) who have enough influence to be able to either pump up the price of a stock or deflate the price of a stock. As I said, I am not against it, but I don't really think it does anything, either good or bad. As far as the fee's, most of that fee goes to the facilitation company, of which ADP Brokerage Systems Group is a major player in that market.

                                                            #6.6 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:39 AM EST
                                                            Dennis in WA

                                                            I am not sure what you think my policies mention, because ALL I have said is that the system today is skewed and the extreme low capital gains tax rate compared to the dividend tax rate is largely the cause.

                                                            We have yet to come to an understanding because I disagree entirely with the accuracy of this statement. In fact, at this point in time, capital gains (short term only) are taxed at a HIGHER rate than dividends, not lower, and with respect to long term capital gains, they are taxed at the same rate, not lower. I do not believe that EITHER form of generating income from one's wealth should be treated PREFERENTIALLY vis a vis income generated from work.

                                                            If I understand your argument correctly, you find the differences in the way dividend income is generated versus the way capital gains income is generated to be problematic. In that (theoretically, at least) dividend income is generated by the distribution to shareholders of some portion of a business' profits, while capital gains income is generated (with respect to a going concern at least) when one owner sells their share of the business to another for a profit.

                                                            The other way is to ramp up the price of the shares and sell those at a profit (to yourself), the company still only has the 100K, but the market may have pumped the value of those shares higher (or lower) than your investment.

                                                            Except the company has the initial $100k, plus whatever retained earnings they have generated in the interim utilizing that $100k investment, and how does a company "pump up its value" without generating profits (over the long run).

                                                            I would argue that you dramatically overstate the distinction. First, when one sells their share of a business, the valuation is determined in some part (as your personal example notes) based on book value, which itself reflects the degree to which past business profits have been reinvested in the business. In addition, some "goodwill" value is (appropriately) added to the fundamental, reflecting the agreement of the parties on the value of the intangible aspects of the business. As you note in your personal example, that is a perfectly reasonable way to value an exchange of capital positions from one investor to another (though in practice, the intangible valuation portion is more typically "backed into" by some projection of future profit generation).

                                                            If I understand correctly, you are primarily arguing against the speculative aspect of the valuation determinations when equity is exchanged, as opposed to the general character of dividends, more generally created from "real" historical profitability, rather the speculation regarding future profitability.

                                                            The two forms of income generation are complementary, not exclusive, however, and whether or not a firm distributes income as dividends or retains it to reinvest (and thereby generating capital gains) should not be made based on preferential tax treatment for one or the other, but on the ability of the firm to generate a return on retained earnings.

                                                            (A couple of times you've indicated that you feel there is some "penalty" or what have you somewhere in the tax or regulatory structure that coerces firms to issue dividends - I've never heard of anything like that - could you please elaborate?)

                                                            The speculative aspect of finance (which I agree is a significant problem with the current Western capitalist system) is directly addressed by the concept of a financial transactions tax, in that it would tax the (speculative) transfer of financial assets that are traded (and retraded and retraded) to generate capital gains, while it would not tax dividends (unless the recipient chose to "reinvest" - ie. "let 'me ride in the financial casino").

                                                            Additional taxation and regulation of speculatative activities throughout the financial markets would be a welcome addition. I believe this is a more apt approach to addressing what I think you are suggesting to be the issue. It isn't that "preferential" tax treatment of capital gains versus dividends, which doesn't exist, is the cause of the massive increases in financial speculation, it's that holders of wealth have found that they have been able to generate higher returns with less work by speculating verus the hard work of building and managing real businesses. The "churning" and pumping aspects of institutional "investment" (speculation) would be subject to this sort of tax, while the retail, buy and hold investor would be negligibly impacted.

                                                            Thanks for the explanation of "transfer pricing". I havent fully formulated my ideas for corporate tax reform, but one thought that I'd like to throw out there for consideration is for corporate income taxes (at least for publically traded firms) to be based on the profits reported in the firm's SEC filings - to satisfy investors, they still have the same incentive to show maximum profits, and this would permit lower tax rates because a far greater proportion of ACTUAL corporate profits would be subject to tax.

                                                            (Other thoughts for consideration on that broader issue - some sort of VAT-fighting change to corporate taxation that would help equalize the playing field between US businesses and competitors both on the import and export sides, and a corporate tax philosophy that focuses not on corporate income, but on the societal costs of corporate activity, such as the cost of governmental regulation and an attempt to capture the costs of otherwise non-monetized externalities generated by the business' activities)

                                                            So I guess perhaps we could agree on another scenario - equalize the treatment of income from work with income from dividends, by taxing both at the same rate for personal income tax purposes (recognizing that this means income from work is still "double-taxed" - payroll and personal income taxes, as is income from dividends - for both corporate and personal income taxes). Treat capital gains also the same way for personal income taxes, but institute a financial transaction tax to both discourage speculative financial transactions, and to generate revenue which might be used to reduce corporate tax rates as part of a larger overhaul of corporate taxes to address the myriad issues with that system.

                                                            I realize that we've gone way into the weeds on the justifications or lack thereof for some current/potential taxation systems, and would suggest that you may wish to go back to my comments under 5.8 above to my broad approach to framing the issues that underlie my thoughts on removing the current preferences for wealth over work (capital over labor) in governmental policy.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #6.7 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:52 PM EST
                                                            Jonathan-1917156

                                                            1) Personally I think all Capital Gains should be taxed the same way, no short term/long term difference, and yes I deliberately ignore the short term capital gains treatment because it is largely a speculation thing, and not really an investment mechanism, but there really isn't much that can be done from a tax policy perspective to deal with it. There are situations where you do want to tax Capital Gains differently (sale of a primary residence is an example) but that can be handled through specific deviances in the tax code.

                                                            2) My comments about dividends is in relation to the idea of removing the credits that individuals receive when accounting for it as income. I FULLY support treating all capital gains (short or long term) as straight income as well.

                                                            As for how companies pump up the share price, lets see, to name a few:

                                                            1) lay people off, reducing costs in the short term, creating short term profit gains, thereby pumping up the stock price.

                                                            2) cutting R&D spending, thereby increasing short term profits, pumping up the stock price.

                                                            3) leveraging the company to the point where the company is not sustainable longer term. (this happens a lot in the PE scenario because of the hedge fund loophole where dividend income is treated as capital gains).

                                                            And NO you don't understand what I am saying. I have MUCH more of a concern about how capital gains is treated as opposed to the current way that dividends are treated currently. My concern is about the suggestion to remove the current individual tax credit for dividend earnings. This has NOTHING to do with how I get paid from my own company, because I pay myself a straight salary, which has more to do with a family court dispute for the purposes of calculating spousal support, I already am forced to pay myself more than double what I want to because of it, but that has nothing to do with this, that is my personal situation.

                                                            My reference to a penalty is that there is a penalty (if you remove the individual tax dividend credit) to issuing dividends, not that there is a penalty that forces companies to issue dividends. This is probably where you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. The problem is thus:

                                                            Lets say I want to pay myself 100K (I choose that amount because the IRS accounting would be similar, once you get beyond the payroll tax, the issue becomes more convoluted). If I pay myself a salary, that salary becomes a tax deduction for the company, therefore my company does not pay tax on the income that is given to me as salary compensation. My company does have to pay the matching payroll tax rates however. The point is that the money is PRE corporate income tax.

                                                            If I instead want to pay myself as a dividend, then the dividend will come out of the pool of money left AFTER the company has paid its corporate income tax. This means that if my corporate tax rate is 30% (and YES I know this varies from company to company), then that means out of that 100K, I only have 70K to distribute the dividend from, and then I have to pay a further income tax on the 70K that I receive. Now the payroll tax rates in this case are such that the IRS would generally STILL force the payment of payroll taxes on that 100K in MY situation because it would be my entire income from the company and that it would be seen as a way of bypassing paying payroll taxes.

                                                            ALL I have said is that the current treatment of dividend income on individual dividend income should remain relatively intact. THAT IS IT. It isn't perfect, well nothing ever is, but it does serve somewhat to remove some of the disadvantage to dividend income being double taxed.

                                                            The capital gains treatment, that should be treated as earned income and taxed accordingly.

                                                            My biggest problem with the tax system right now is that it isn't balanced, and because it isn't balanced, it creates a situation where companies are making decisions based on the best tax advantage rather than what is best for the business.

                                                              #6.8 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:59 PM EST
                                                              Jonathan-1917156

                                                              As for the 'have companies pay for what they report on their SEC filings', there are two problems to that.

                                                              1) What goes on the SEC filings isn't necessarily the numbers that the corporate income tax is levied on (outside of the foreign retained earnings).

                                                              2) Without fixing the imbalance in the tax system overall, the only thing it will accomplish is that they will change what they do to turn that 'income' into non capital assets (basically an asset value increase, which isn't income until you realize it by selling the asset) and we will be back at square one. It still won't be taxed.

                                                                #6.9 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:15 PM EST
                                                                Dennis in WA

                                                                My reference to a penalty is that there is a penalty (if you remove the individual tax dividend credit) to issuing dividends

                                                                You are referring to the preferential tax rate for dividends, not some tax dividend credit (I am unaware of any such credit), correct?

                                                                Several things I would note for discussion. First, and most importantly I think, I am not at all opposed to a more rational system of taxation for corporations, with the general goal of taxing all corporations more consistently, so that (if income is still the basis) the marginal rate can decline while still generating revenue at or above the current level. This is important in that the variability of corporate effective tax rates makes a huge difference in your personal example, versus examples which reflect the effective rates of taxation at or near zero that many companies actually pay.

                                                                I don't think it is appropriate to make public policy based on an individual example such as your own, that I would suggest is NOT in many respects typical of folks receiving dividend income from corporate ownership interests. In your personal case, you, as a controlling party, have the opportunity to take a corporate draw in whichever form (dividends or salary/bonus) that may overall be preferable in your situation - nothing wrong with that.

                                                                But given that most corporations do not pay an effective tax rate at or near 30% (in fact "most", in actual number of corporations, are probably S-corps not paying any corporate taxes - all corporate income devolving to personal returns), making tax policy based on that exception to the norm is flawed - public policy should first seek to make sure all corporations are paying taxes on a more equal footing.

                                                                Let's take a look at another reasonable example - a corporation paying a 5% effective tax rate on your same $100,000. Under 2011 tax rates, if you took all of your company pay dividends, and that was your only income, the remaining $95,000 for a married couple (standard deduction, no dependents) would be subject to income tax of a grand total of $700, versus the personal income tax on $100k wages of $12,500. So even taking into account the corporate taxes, you're way ahead under status quo, because if your income is entirely from dividends, the first $88,000 is TAX FREE (under the family scenario noted above).

                                                                But again, most people with dividend income, and the vast majority of dividend income, is not distributed to the principals of a corporation, but rather to the non-participating owners. Perhaps some means to distinguish between "real" owners and financial owners only, would also move to satisfy your concerns? And too, the above example of the extent of the preference under the status quo does not include the impact of payroll taxes on wage income (again, your personal example I would argue is not at all representative of the vast majority of dividend income).

                                                                So the actual tax advantages given to income derived from one's wealth, versus income derived from one's work, are by and large HUGE (notwithstanding exceptions - there are almost always exceptions).

                                                                And again, my argument isn't against dividend income, per se, but against taxing them at a lesser rate than income from work.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #6.10 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:37 PM EST
                                                                Jonathan-1917156

                                                                Dennis,

                                                                I apologize, I don't do my taxes because I have three individual tax returns to do (Canada, US, UK) and they need to be coordinated in terms of what deductions I take etc... It doesn't matter if it is a dividend tax credit (which is how it is done in Canada) or a preferential tax rate (which is how you describe it is done in the US). The objective is to try to level out some of the double taxation aspect of dividends compared to wage income. Removing that treatment is in my mind taking out what it is that I believe is important, a balance. CG tax rates today (including the hedge fund loophole which allows for dividend income to be treated as CG income within a hedge fund) are an example of the skew. The dividend treatment is meant to bring individual dividend tax treatment closer to wage income, and that is a good thing.

                                                                As for companies, I will state that I look at them in 3 basic categories:

                                                                1) Transnational which are ALL C-Corps with significant global presence. Most of those companies are able to drop their US corporate taxation levels to less than 10% of not significantly lower. That is through transfer pricing.
                                                                2) Domestic medium and large companies. These are companies that are like the above but do not have a significant global presence, and are not able to use transfer pricing to lower their tax liability. My company, while technically a small business, which is defined as a company with less than 500 employee's, falls into that company. We have a significant tax liability compared to the above.
                                                                3) Small businesses, which are the S-corps (we technically could be a small business but I am not a permanent resident of the US, only here on a visa and the requirement of the S corp is that all shareholders are residents of the US. I ignore these companies in relation to dividend income, specifically because as you state, the income is devolved down to the individual shareholders and put on their tax returns.

                                                                Now while most corporations in the US may technically be S-Corps (or LLC's), that doesn't really mean much because the largest profits are from category 1. Having 100K S-Corps of 1 - 10 employee's still wouldn't do as much business as GE does for example. As such, I categorize issues with S-Corps into the individual tax category.

                                                                And your 'more reasonable' example is not reasonable, because it is specific to transnational companies. I would love to be able to say that I can drop my company's tax liability down to 5%, but I can't. You are applying one situation to a completely different one, and you can't do it.

                                                                Also, I have stated many times, that the dividend treatment ISN'T PERFECT. NOTHING EVER IS. Not sure why that one isn't getting through to you either.

                                                                And NO, I really don't care to separate participating owners from non participating owners, I want a system that treats longer term investors that are getting dividend income to be treated equally from those that are just investing in the stock market to make a quick buck by flipping the stock and earning money only on the gain (or loss if they are shorting). Not sure why that isn't coming through either. Right now the system is skewed in favour of churning money on wall street rather than in longer term investments in company/economic development.

                                                                If that isn't understood by now, then I am not sure how many more times I can say it, or how many different ways I can say it to get that point across.

                                                                  #6.11 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:58 PM EST
                                                                  warrior wheatman

                                                                  Jonathan, maybe the reason for the confusion is that you seemed to be a passive investor -- without payment for duties as befits executives or board-members, or salaries for employment.; and that your sole income was from dividend (if you so chose), or taking equity out.

                                                                  And NO, I really don't care to separate participating owners from non participating owners,

                                                                  (i think that therein lies the problem).

                                                                  I want a system that treats longer term investors that are getting dividend income to be treated equally (from?) (to?) those that are just investing in the stock market to make a quick buck by flipping the stock and earning money only on the gain.

                                                                  (???)

                                                                    #6.12 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:48 AM EST
                                                                    Jonathan-1917156

                                                                    My sole income comes from wage income, me and my business partners RUN my company. I do not receive ANY income from my company from dividend income as a condition of my separation from my ex as my wage income is what determines what my required support payments are.

                                                                    The reason why I don't want to separate the two types of investors because quite frankly it doesn't make a difference. If you invest 100K into my company and I invest 100K into my company, why should we be treated differently? We shouldn't. BUT when my wages receive a tax deduction (meaning it is pre corporate tax) and the dividend does not (meaning it is post corporate tax), then it means that if you make no consideration for that fact, then wage income is taxed less than dividend income.

                                                                    Not sure why I have to keep explaining this part but the CURRENT TAX SYSTEM encourages the churning of capital on the stock market which does NOTHING to build businesses in this country. If you invest 100K in my company on the stock market, demand that I pump up the value of the stock, say by cutting R&D, then you sell your stock after it has been pumped up, you get a gain, and the company gets @!$%#ed. Your gain is taxed at a lower rate than if you were to receive dividends. If there is something about that which is difficult to understand, please tell me what part of it you don't understand? Is there something in the words that I am using that is making this confusing?

                                                                      #6.13 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:10 AM EST
                                                                      Dennis in WA

                                                                      BUT when my wages receive a tax deduction (meaning it is pre corporate tax) and the dividend does not (meaning it is post corporate tax), then it means that if you make no consideration for that fact, then wage income is taxed less than dividend income.

                                                                      Except that isn't the case. Every individual circumstance varies, of course, but in a situation such as yours (aside from settlement matters), with payroll taxes applicable to wages in addition to personal income taxes, the difference in the status quo treatment of wage distribution versus dividend distribution of the $100,000 pre-tax profit goes like this:

                                                                      Married, no kids, standard deduction, $100k profit yields wage payment of $92,893.64 (because company has to pay 1/2 payroll tax), and after normal employee payroll tax and personal income tax, the net is $75,063.87. As I noted before, if dividend income is only income, then first $88,000 is tax free for personal income taxes. So at any effective corporate tax rate of less than 25%, there is a net tax advantage to taking the income as dividends.

                                                                      (I described my prior example as ANOTHER reasonable example, not necessarily a MORE reasonable one)

                                                                      As I've noted before, articles I've read previously suggest that the aggregate of the SP500 pay an effective rate of something less than 20% (17-19%) - so as is, more often than not, wages are taxed more than dividends.

                                                                      My bottom line feeling is this: In NO case should wage income be taxed at a rate higher than investment income. In your particular case, there should be at least equality, if not preference, for paying you and the others who actually do the work of running the business via wages, and a mere investor, who cannot be paid in wages as a return on their investment, should never get taxed at a rate lower than your wages are. Those who do the work are the ones who create the value, and should always be rewarded at least as well as those whose only contribution to the enterprise is their capital investment.

                                                                      I'm open to any combination of reforms that yields this result. In fact, the concept you mentioned from the Canadian system of some form of dividend tax credit (presumably which correlates to actual corporate taxes paid) would not be unreasonable as part of the project, as long as the bottom line result meets my premise.

                                                                      Your gain is taxed at a lower rate than if you were to receive dividends. If there is something about that which is difficult to understand, please tell me what part of it you don't understand?

                                                                      Not confusion at all, I just disagree with the accuracy of your statement. It is less obvious, but ultimately the price one pays for an interest in a business (hence generating potential capital gains for the seller) is about the present value of estimated future AFTER TAX corporate earnings. So with respect to a capital gain, the purchase/sales price does incorporate the effect of corporate taxation, whether the investment price determination is explicitly calculated on a "future earnings" basis, or is less analytically and more speculatively driven.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #6.14 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:47 PM EST
                                                                      Jonathan-1917156

                                                                      Dennis,

                                                                      Ok, then you tell that after seeing the calculations to the people we have been trying to get to invest in our business after they demand that they want us to generate at least a 15% ROI on an annualized basis. You tell them that their calculations are wrong, you tell them that my calculations which match their calculations are wrong.

                                                                      I have been personally dealing with this crap for more than 3 years now.

                                                                        #6.15 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:00 PM EST
                                                                        Dennis in WA

                                                                        I'm sympathetic to your particular circumstance, and would again, be supportive of a combination of policy changes (tax and otherwise) that would, for example, more equitably tax corporations of all stripes, so that you don't have to generate an ROE of 21.4% to generate the investor's expected return after a 30% effective corporate tax rate. You'd at least be a more competitive investment option vis a vis a firm with a current 10% effective rate.

                                                                        In part, the suggestions I've made to encourage businesses more broadly to pay their active owners, etc. compensation via wages rather than dividends would also tend to reduce the firm's tax liability.

                                                                        Also, removing the present tax preference for capital gains, and the possibility of implementing a financial transaction tax would both tend to reduce the investment returns of more speculative endeavors(as opposed to actual INVESTMENTS in businesses), again with the idea that the relative return your firm may be able to reasonably create would become more competitive with other opportunities.

                                                                        So in the aggregate, I would suggest that the combination of options I've put out there, and am willing to consider, would be both to make sure that radically different corporate tax rates aren't an impediment to the efficient allocation of capital, and that if currently available speculative "easy money" opportunities are discouraged (reducing their rate of return), then we can both reduce the pre-tax ROE you'd need to achieve AND reduce the after tax ROI investors may require.

                                                                        In other words, with some changes that discourage speculation I would hope that the overall scheme would be more conducive to encouraging actual investing. If you have ideas that would encourage long term investing versus speculation, without shifting the burdens to workers, I'm certainly willing to listen.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #6.16 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:36 PM EST
                                                                        Jonathan-1917156

                                                                        Treat capital gains as wage income and remove the hedge fund loophole would be my initial suggestion, but alas, I had stated that a long time ago in this discussion. If that also means a lowering of the taxrate overall, then that would be also be a reasonable adjustment to remain relatively revenue neutral, at least on the corporate side, but until the deficit and post deficit reduction, the debt levels start to become more manageable, I wouldn't think that would be the greatest of ideas, but it may be needed to gain the political will for a change like this.

                                                                          #6.17 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:42 PM EST
                                                                          Dennis in WA

                                                                          Treat capital gains as wage income and remove the hedge fund loophole would be my initial suggestion

                                                                          I'd take it as a start, even if it didn't completely get where I think we ought to go (I'd still include dividends in the "tax as wage income" category) - really, get rid of the special treatment of cap gains, and you get rid of the "carried interest" loophole automatically by extension (since it pertains to private equity firm's fees being considered capital gains instead of fees for tax purposes).

                                                                          I agree that this sort of change alone wouldn't provide sufficient revenue to consider lowering tax rates overall, but that goes back to the broader tax reform (elimination of 1/2 of the present total of roughly $1.1t/year in tax expenditures). Do that, and you can certainly get both substantial deficit reduction and at least a justification for extending all the Bush tax rates, if not lowering them from there.

                                                                          Both the president and Daniels' response indicated that there is some bipartisan support for such a reform of the personal income tax code - whether or not anyone will get serious during an election year is another matter.

                                                                          Also cause for some optimism is specific mention in the SOTU of corporate tax reforms, such as we've been discussing here, that seemed to take on directly the "transfer pricing" discussion we've had. Again, Daniels seemed to signal some flexibility on this point.

                                                                          There was also at least the appearance of some agreement among both sides on means testing for social safety net programs, and for "all of the above" energy R&D.

                                                                          Although the rhetoric, particularly from the Daniels' speech (and parroting the BS coming out of the Republican debates), suggests there's plenty of appetite for continued deadlock, perhaps enough cooler heads will come to the conclusion that getting things done that both sides agree on might actually help each politically.

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #6.18 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:52 PM EST
                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                          Daniels speech didn't even reflect what the SOTU speech had in its content.

                                                                          My only comment about the speech is that this should have been his FIRST SOTU. Why did we have to wait 3 years for it.

                                                                          The Daniels speech though I can sort of understand, what they do is prewrite several speeches and then decide what speech to give after the SOTU. What I don't understand is Ari Fleischer's comments on CNN after the speech where he basically parroted as a personal comment that there was nothing in the SOTU other than spending other people's money (what the @!$%# universe did he hear the SOTU in). The gaul of that is compounded by the fact that Fleischer was one of the key players in the first bush administration which took a balanced budget, and blew that sucker up real good and created the structural problems that has created the current situation. If I was near that Piece of @!$%#, I would have gotten up and pounded the crap out of him.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #6.19 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:13 PM EST
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          warrior wheatman

                                                                          Yes, for the NYSE, you'd have to be big enough; but there are other exchanges.

                                                                          Interesting that each investor has his/r own class. I guess that is one way to separate capital gains from income. My ideal would be for every citizen to have both a capital and an income account; taking from capital as needed; as if each is a corporation. In your situation it would mean selling shares I guess. Separate classes might have its place.

                                                                          My reference to fees, was to note that transactions are already charged -- a tax is thus easy to initiate.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          Reply#7 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:21 AM EST
                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                          The other exchanges also have listing requirements, but we are not a technology firm like apple, so the NASDAQ really wouldn't be a good exchange for us to be on. There are smaller exchanges as well but because they are so small, if we were listed on them, we wouldn't get much exposure.

                                                                          As for our company share classes, that was only done to facilitate dividends to a specific investor. So if I wanted a dividend this year, and my business partner didn't, all we had to do was issue a dividend to a specific class. It just made the bookkeeping simpler, that's all. Once we move forward with our current plans, we will be doing a reorg, we will be bringing in outside money, and our share classifications will probably be completely revamped. We will probably be keeping the two classes, but one for internal and one for the external investors, but there will also be a bond issue as all of our current negotiations have as part of the capital infusion a mix of debt/equity.

                                                                          And yes, I understand that the tax would be easy to initiate, but how do you tax? on the transaction? on the fill? on the monetary value of the trade? each one has different advantages and disadvantages, but none of which really deal with any underlying problems which to me is that there is too much trade initiated price movements. It would be much better in my mind to just increase the capital gains tax rate, which would make the problem of relying on stock price increases/decreases for your income less advantageous. Now if you are initiating the tax just for revenue enhancement, that is a different matter, but to me that is a bad reason to charge a tax. Yes you need the revenue, but there needs to be some form of balance in the system outside of the taxation to make it justified.

                                                                          This article though wasn't supposed to be about raw details though, but more to outline a what I see is a big problem, which is a lack of vision from both parties to deal with what I feel are longer term issues. That vision could be composed of many different ideas, as there is usually more than one way to solve a problem. A tax on transactions is a viable solution, but another viable solution could involve no tax on transactions. That is more a mechanics issue than it is a vision issue, at least in my mind.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #7.1 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:40 AM EST
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                          Ok, instead of writing another article, after listening to the State of the Onion I have these comments:

                                                                          1) WHY did we not get this as his FIRST SOTU? While it isn't perfect, it at least shows some vision.

                                                                          2) What world does Ari Fleischer live in? What Universe actually. His only rebuttal (as a CNN contributor), was that Obama only talked about spending other people's money? What speech did he listen to? The biggest component of the speech was tax benefits for those that keep or bring back jobs. And considering the source, a key player in the government that took a balanced budget and blew that sucker out of the water, well, looking at the fantasy land of the source ...

                                                                          3) Mitch Daniels speech sounds like it was written by the same person that wrote Ari Fleischer's comments. WOW at the suspension of reality.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          Reply#8 - Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:32 PM EST
                                                                          warrior wheatman

                                                                          2) What world does Ari Fleischer live in? What Universe actually. His only rebuttal (as a CNN contributor), was that Obama only talked about spending other people's money?

                                                                          I don't much follow party antics, but was surprised how muted all of the applause was. By the types of sound I could tell there were a lot of people ... but it was sad to see the president not getting the response to his punchlines.

                                                                          I hope CNN isn't that partisan, and that it was just an unenlightened recording student.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #8.1 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:27 AM EST
                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                          Ari Fleischer was the press secretary in the first Bush II term.

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #8.2 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:05 AM EST
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          Arkansas Gloria

                                                                          This is a long read- coming back tomorrow. Have learned some- but I get into trouble when people use abbreviations that I do not know, and that weren't highlighted in the first use of The Paragraph (TP). This conversation though is much preferable to party-mud slinging, and I see the band-aids as truth... have for awhile, and actually worse- it is not only teaching non-responsibility to the adults, it is often training young people to pursue it- while offering no strengths to the nation.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          Reply#9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:34 AM EST
                                                                          Jonathan-1917156

                                                                          which abbreviations?

                                                                            #9.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:53 AM EST
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            Arkansas Gloria

                                                                            Will make a small list later today- have to shower/laundry, etc. for awhile today, plus appointment at 6.

                                                                              Reply#10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:30 PM EST
                                                                              Arkansas Gloria

                                                                              haven't been able to get back yet...

                                                                                Reply#11 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:15 AM EST
                                                                                markpup

                                                                                We'll leave the lights on for you.

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                #11.1 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:18 AM EST
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                Arkansas Gloria

                                                                                Is that Hotel 8? LOL.

                                                                                  Reply#12 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:30 AM EST
                                                                                  Leave a Comment:
                                                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                  FUN STUFF:
                                                                                  • Leaderboard |
                                                                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                  • The Greenhouse |
                                                                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                  • Code of Honor |
                                                                                  • Company Info |
                                                                                  • Contact Us |
                                                                                  • Jobs |
                                                                                  • User Agreement |
                                                                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                  • About our ads
                                                                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com