Financial News

[southsider2k5]

See, and that's s*** morals, to do what's "best" for yourself and f*** the millions that would be impacted by it. Even if not doing what's "best" for yourself won't actually affect your life.

 

We have many freedoms to do stupid and terrible things. That doesn't mean that we should exercise them in those manners.

 

It would be best for you to send most of your wealth to people in Africa. Have you done it?

[southsider2k5]

btw long-term, it's probably not "best" for the uber-wealthy to crash the system and cause widespread economic suffering. That usually doesn't end well for the "let them eat cake" crowd.

 

Its ironic to hear you rage about people taking down a system, and then to advocate for revolution under your breath.

[StrangeSox]

It would be best for you to send most of your wealth to people in Africa. Have you done it?

 

Oh hey this lame dodge again.

 

Now, let’s put aside factual nitpicking about whether any of the OWS protestors are in the “global 1%”1 and acknowledge the kernel of truth that makes these kinds of sentiments so noxious: the wealth disparity between the First and Third Worlds is huge, the plight of the poor in the most destitute parts of the world is horrifying, and it’s worth keeping that in mind in any movement for positive change. Now, why this is so noxious: it’s very unlikely that those producing images like this would support policies to address the plight of the world’s poorest people, much less likely than the protestors they deride. Remember that caring about the poor in the Third World used to be the kind of “bleeding heart liberal guilt” conservatives scoffed at. Now that people in the U.S. are forming a serious movement against the transformation of our country into a dysfunctional oligarchy, there’s a whole lot of concern about hunger in Africa from unlikely corners.2

 

So, in the clearest terms: images like this are not made out of any actual sense of concern for anyone’s well-being. They are made to allow their target audience to feel secure in ignoring social and economic injustice. They are about exploiting the worst off to dismiss the concerns of those who, while better off, still have legitimate grievances. Generally speaking, concern over the negative effects of wealth disparity in the U.S. does not preclude concern about global inequality.

[southsider2k5]

Oh hey this lame dodge again.

 

Its the usual dodge of people above me should be paying. Its lame. If you are going to expound a lifestyle you should probably be willing to live it.

[StrangeSox]

Its ironic to hear you rage about people taking down a system, and then to advocate for revolution under your breath.

I am not unaware of the irony. I considered changing my avatar to Robespierre.

[StrangeSox]

Its the usual dodge of people above me should be paying. Its lame. If you are going to expound a lifestyle you should probably be willing to live it.

 

I am not in the top bracket but I am not opposed to my taxes rising by some marginal amount. I certainly wouldn't be a giant baby and cause millions to suffer if I had the ability.

 

However, it is still a weak dodge in defense of privilege. People in America can still have legitimate concerns about wealth disparity in this country even if they are relatively well-off compared to other parts of the world. Saying "well what about Africa!?" only works as a weak distraction to avoid actually talking about wealth disparity in America.

[southsider2k5]

I am not in the top bracket but I am not opposed to my taxes rising by some marginal amount. I certainly wouldn't be a giant baby and cause millions to suffer if I had the ability.

 

However, it is still a weak dodge in defense of privilege. People in America can still have legitimate concerns about wealth disparity in this country even if they are relatively well-off compared to other parts of the world. Saying "well what about Africa!?" only works as a weak distraction to avoid actually talking about wealth disparity in America.

 

The statement was about the common good, and not affecting your lifestyle. If you are living a typical American lifestyle you can give a hell of a lot more than you are right now. With your standards, you are causing many, many people to suffer. The cost of the device you are using to post on Soxtalk alone could feed plenty of people in your own hometown.

 

What is weak is pointing at other people to be responsible for things, and then in the same breath shirking the same responsibility. The problem is that all too many people do it talk. It would work better if people would shut up and actually do something once in a while, instead of pointing virtual fingers up the economic ladder.

 

[StrangeSox]

Arguing for higher tax rates on the top incomes and for economic and social policy that lessens the wealth gap in America is not shirking responsibility. You don't need to impoverish yourself in order to make these economic policy arguments, and you are being completely disingenuous when you say that.

 

edit: further, what you are saying is simply not true. If I were to give an additional 10% of my income each year, it would have a material impact on my lifestyle and what I could or couldn't afford. This is not true of centamillionaires and billionaires.

Edited November 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Arguing for higher tax rates on the top incomes and for economic and social policy that lessens the wealth gap in America is not shirking responsibility. You don't need to impoverish yourself in order to make these economic policy arguments, and you are being completely disingenuous when you say that.

 

edit: further, what you are saying is simply not true. If I were to give an additional 10% of my income each year, it would have a material impact on my lifestyle and what I could or couldn't afford. This is not true of centamillionaires and billionaires.

 

Material is the perfect word for the avoidance here. Taking a simple example to the extreme makes my point. It is other people's responsibility to take care of other people. Raging on line about it is way more important than actually giving up anything materialistic to do it.

[StrangeSox]

'Raging' online and actually doing something are not mutually exclusive.

 

However, you continue to evade the point, which is that the ultra wealthy, those with the ability to move the markets, don't even actually have to give up anything. It would not impact their life one iota, yet you advocate that they not only can, but that they should crash the economic system.

[southsider2k5]

'Raging' online and actually doing something are not mutually exclusive.

 

However, you continue to evade the point, which is that the ultra wealthy, those with the ability to move the markets, don't even actually have to give up anything. It would not impact their life one iota, yet you advocate that they not only can, but that they should crash the economic system.

 

Keep pointing the finger at someone else.

[StrangeSox]

In a conversation about economic disparity in the US, yeah, I'm going to point to the people with five extra zeroes on their net worth.

[Jake]

StrangeSox, why aren't you fixing the economy you asshole?!?!

 

Just because the super-rich won't do the right thing and save us all, doesn't mean you can't!!!

 

 

 

 

 

...you don't have the ability to move the market favorably? What? You're just some guy and whether or not you insert morality into your economic decisions doesn't really matter?

[StrangeSox]

Mitch McConnell also announces that the GOP is simply not open to increasing taxes on the rich:

One issue I’ve never been conflicted about is taxes. I wasn’t sent to Washington to raise anybody’s taxes to pay for more wasteful spending and this election doesn’t change my principles. This election was a disappointment, without doubt, but let’s be clear about something: the House is still run by Republicans, and Republicans still maintain a robust minority in the Senate. I know some people out there think Tuesday’s results mean Republicans in Washington are now going to roll over and agree to Democrat demands that we hike tax rates before the end of the year. I’m here to tell them there is no truth to that notion whatsoever.

[StrangeSox]

David Frum captures my frustration with the obsession about the deficit among the media and politicians:

 

Since the loss of the election, we have heard an enormous amount of discussion from Republicans on television and newspaper columns about immigration as an issue...but all of us who are allowed to participate in this conversation, we all have health insurance. And the fact that millions of Americans don't have health insurance, they don't get to be on television. And it is maybe a symptom of a broader problem, not just the Republican problem, that the economic anxieties of so many Americans are just not part of the national discussion at all. I mean, we have not yet emerged from the greatest national catastrophe, the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. And what are we talking about? The deficit and the debt. And these are important problems, but they're a lot easier to worry about if you are wealthier than you were in 2008, which most of the people on television now are again, if you are securely employed, which most of the people on television now are. But that's not true for 80% of America. And the Republican Party, the opposition party, needed to find some way to give voice to real urgent economic concerns held by middle class Americans. Latinos, yes, but Americans of all ethnicities.

[Jake]

"LONDON--A shale oil boom means the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020, a radical shift that could profoundly transform not just the world's energy supplies, but also its geopolitics, the International Energy Agency said Monday.

 

In its closely watched annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA, which advises industrialized nations on their energy policies, said the global energy map, "is being redrawn by the resurgence in oil and gas production in the United States."

 

The assessment is in stark contrast with last year, when it envisioned Russia and Saudi Arabia vying for the top position.

 

"By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer" and overtake Saudi Arabia for a time, the agency said. "The result is a continued fall in U.S. oil imports (currently at 20% of its needs) to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030."

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-set-to...dist=beforebell

[bmags]

I think this "tax hikes only for the wealthy" is a dangerous path to go down. If you want to argue that these important services are important (they are), then you can't also argue "but someone else should pay for them".

[StrangeSox]

Citigroup said Friday that the former CEO, who resigned last month in a management shakeup, will receive an “incentive award” of $6.7 million for his work at the bank this year. Former president and chief operating officer John Havens, who stepped down along with Pandit, is getting $6.8 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

The two men will also continue collecting deferred cash and stock compensation from last year, awards valued at $8.8 million for Pandit and $8.7 million for Havens.

The company suffered a profit loss of 88 percent during the third quarter, when Pandit supposedly earned his “incentive award.” During his time at Citi, Pandit made some $260 million in total compensation, even accounting for the year he took a $1 salary during the financial crisis.

[StrangeSox]

Some numbers on "going over the fiscal cliff"

 

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/1...g_over_the.html

 

 

He makes the case that you really should break the "cliff" up into the individual issues. Some will be relatively easy to walk back after January 1st, some will be a bit more complicated.

 

Also, related to what ss2k5 was saying earlier:

It also is worth commenting on the dividend cliff. At the moment, the maximum tax rate on income from dividends is 15%. But under current law, in January we will see: (1) dividend earnings of high-income tax payers would come to be taxed at the regular income rate instead of the favored capital-gains rate, (2) the regular tax rate for upper-income households will rise from the current 35% to a new 39.6%; and (3) a 3.8% surtax will be added to dividend income of high-income investors. The combined effect of all three is that the maximum tax rate on dividends rises from a current value of 15% to a new value of 43.4%. That's a sufficiently big change that I would not want to rule out the possibility of a significant effect on equity valuations or corporate governance.

[Y2HH]

I think this "tax hikes only for the wealthy" is a dangerous path to go down. If you want to argue that these important services are important (they are), then you can't also argue "but someone else should pay for them".

 

It's also largely a political ploy, whether some of us agree that the wealthy can afford to play more taxes or not, the fact that raising their taxes equates to about 4 days worth of spending shows how political it actually is. Much more needs to be done than simply raising the top rates and pretending all is well. They need to reform and simplify the entire tax code, both for regular people, rich people and last but not least, corporations. While we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the fact is, none of these corporations pay anywhere near that rate, showing that once again, these rates are mostly political pandering, but don't actually mean much.

 

If you tax someone at 30%, but give them an endless amount of deductions, and in the end their actual tax rate is 11%, it doesn't matter if you raise it from 30% to 39%...in the end they'll probably only pay 11.3% despite that bump from 30 to 39. What they need to do is attach deductions to your income rate (regardless of how you make that income, be it via interest, dividends, etc.) If you make 500k a year, you don't need the same amount of deductions that a person making 60k a year with a family of 4 does. But if they want to make an actual dent, keeping everything as it is, but raising the top end rate a few percentage points isn't going to do it. It's as much of a false play as pretending that cutting taxes across the board will somehow pay off all of our debt.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Some numbers on "going over the fiscal cliff"

 

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/1...g_over_the.html

 

 

He makes the case that you really should break the "cliff" up into the individual issues. Some will be relatively easy to walk back after January 1st, some will be a bit more complicated.

 

Also, related to what ss2k5 was saying earlier:

 

I'm 100% in favor of that. Never understood why we were punishing middle class investors for being smart with their money.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's also largely a political ploy, whether some of us agree that the wealthy can afford to play more taxes or not, the fact that raising their taxes equates to about 4 days worth of spending shows how political it actually is. Much more needs to be done than simply raising the top rates and pretending all is well. They need to reform and simplify the entire tax code, both for regular people, rich people and last but not least, corporations. While we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the fact is, none of these corporations pay anywhere near that rate, showing that once again, these rates are mostly political pandering, but don't actually mean much.

 

If you tax someone at 30%, but give them an endless amount of deductions, and in the end their actual tax rate is 11%, it doesn't matter if you raise it from 30% to 39%...in the end they'll probably only pay 11.3% despite that bump from 30 to 39. What they need to do is attach deductions to your income rate (regardless of how you make that income, be it via interest, dividends, etc.) If you make 500k a year, you don't need the same amount of deductions that a person making 60k a year with a family of 4 does. But if they want to make an actual dent, keeping everything as it is, but raising the top end rate a few percentage points isn't going to do it. It's as much of a false play as pretending that cutting taxes across the board will somehow pay off all of our debt.

 

The more you make the less those deductions are as a percent of your income. Just about every deduction is capped at a certain point (mortgage interest might be the only one that's not). So in reality i'm fine keeping those deductions the same regardless of income, otherwise the rich would pay less in taxes.

 

But I agree. Reports for the last year have shown that you can tax the 1% at 100% and not get anywhere with the deficit. An increase in taxes has to be met with meaningful cuts. And not bulls*** cuts like "we'll lower the budget X billions over the next ten years." It needs to be immediate cuts that can't be ignored next election.

[StrangeSox]

We shouldn't be cutting spending or probably raising taxes at all until we actually have unemployment under control again.

[Jake]

Some numbers on "going over the fiscal cliff"

 

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/1...g_over_the.html

 

 

He makes the case that you really should break the "cliff" up into the individual issues. Some will be relatively easy to walk back after January 1st, some will be a bit more complicated.

 

Also, related to what ss2k5 was saying earlier:

 

I agree that everything should be negotiated separately and hopefully some good faith agreements can be reached (you can promise to vote for this in a meeting and you will actually vote for it on the floor). I know that a separate train of thought is a much broader scale tax reform that would effectively address all these issues without directly extending them.

 

I would be okay with modest tax increases on everyone, ideologically -- just like like paying 10 cents more for your pizza or whatever else gets your fellow man health insurance, I can certainly see why everyone and not just the top earners need to share the burden of our debt and the social programs that we all benefit from. I am not sure if it would really harm the economy, though...obviously a big part of this stuff is perception and confidence and if the prevailing news story is tax hikes, we're in trouble because people will horde their money even if they don't have to.

 

As far as spending cuts, I am against them in principle -- if we're cutting funds to the poor, disabled, unemployed, elderly, you name it...I don't see much good coming from that. However, I have to think that there are some inefficiencies out there. Just like I don't expect the Republicans to view every single proposed revenue increase as pure evil without individually evaluating each one, I will be willing to hear the arguments for spending cuts as they come. I won't respond well to "the poor don't deserve my money!" but there MUST be some things worth cutting back on. For instance, I have a side job in the dietary supplement industry and the FDA is raiding people for having technically banned yet benign ingredients, banning even more new things on technicalities, etc. In my view, the FDA need not be spending money on that. There are probably more examples like this.

 

[bmags]

Except there's no good reason to raise taxes right now.