Financial News

[KipWellsFan]

Whatever, dude. A Canadian telling me how our tax system works? I clearly don't understand it... considering that's what I do for a living. But okay, tell me all about it, mmmkay?

 

You guys want to always come up with the talking points that are fed to you every day. Fact after fact is posted about the system, and then because we don't support raising taxes up the wazoo to buy all these entitlement programs you want force fed up our ass, we're stupid and don't understand who pays what. And then, you want to bend the goalposts and nitpick so that facts are twisted every way but Sunday to make it fit your "debates". Ridiculous.

 

Yea, I'm an assclown. Whatever.

 

Nope, and I guess I'm a hypocrite on this, but I don't like seeing you calling my fellow soxtalkers idiots.

[kapkomet]

Nope, and I guess I'm a hypocrite on this, but I don't like seeing you calling my fellow soxtalkers idiots.

Really?

 

I get called that almost every day on here, and you obviously don't have a problem with it. And I didn't say they were idiots, I said that they/you don't understand it. And you don't... except what you want to believe.

[KipWellsFan]

Really?

 

I get called that almost every day on here, and you obviously don't have a problem with it. And I didn't say they were idiots, I said that they/you don't understand it. And you don't... except what you want to believe.

 

 

I don't claim to understand the tax system. I don't think I've even really participated in this thread. But I thought the posts above about some high earners getting great tax benefits was interesting. And I would like to have seen some real arguments against, not dismissal.

Edited July 31, 2010 by KipWellsFan

[southsider2k5]

Here's the classic bit of it.

Lilnk

 

It is 100% true that there are gigantic tax advantages to making money through certain types of market transactions (i.e. hedge fund managers) compared with working for a normal job.

 

So how much in payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, capital gains taxes did his business generate, if we are including everything?

[Balta1701]

So how much in payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, capital gains taxes did his business generate, if we are including everything?

Depends. How much of it was government contracts? That's socialism right, so it should count like a quadruple negative or something like that.

[southsider2k5]

Depends. How much of it was government contracts? That's socialism right, so it should count like a quadruple negative or something like that.

 

If that is the case, the lower brackets are in for a way higher negative percentage, even including all of the secondary stuff.

[Balta1701]

If that is the case, the lower brackets are in for a way higher negative percentage, even including all of the secondary stuff.

Which is exactly what you guys have been saying.

[southsider2k5]

Which is exactly what you guys have been saying.

 

That the rich pay way more in taxes? Yes.

[Balta1701]

That the rich pay way more in taxes? Yes.

No, that no one else pays any.

 

Of course the rich pay more. They have 80%+ of the wealth in this country.

[kapkomet]

No, that no one else pays any.

 

Of course the rich pay more. They have 80%+ of the wealth in this country.

 

 

Or, 99.9% of it to listen to you talk, and that should be taken away and given to you.

[Balta1701]

Or, 99.9% of it to listen to you talk, and that should be taken away and given to you.

And of course, the difference between 35% tax rates and 39% top level tax rates is equivalent to wanting 150% TAX RATES ON EVERYONE NOT IN A UNION.

[southsider2k5]

No, that no one else pays any.

 

Of course the rich pay more. They have 80%+ of the wealth in this country.

 

The logic just went completely circular in here. It started out with the wealthy pay less than the nonwealthy. Then when everything got mentioned, like it did with the nonwealthy, it turned to payouts. When all of the payouts got mentioned, it went back to being nothing.

[StrangeSox]

The wealthy pay the highest dollar amounts but the superwealthy pay lower percentages of total earnings than lower/upper middle class and the somewhat-wealthy. At least that's my understanding of it.

 

The aside about how much the poor pay came up because someone erroneously b****ed that they pay no taxes.

[southsider2k5]

The wealthy pay the highest dollar amounts but the superwealthy pay lower percentages of total earnings than lower/upper middle class and the somewhat-wealthy. At least that's my understanding of it.

 

The aside about how much the poor pay came up because someone erroneously b****ed that they pay no taxes.

 

As I demonstrated with Buffet, it all depends on which taxes and fees you choose to leave in and out.

[mr_genius]

Depends. How much of it was government contracts? That's socialism right, so it should count like a quadruple negative or something like that.

 

balta, you do realize your sacred Democrats allow government 'stimulus' contracts to off-shore 100% of contract work? nice to know my taxes, designated for US job creation, go to pay for jobs in India.

[Balta1701]

balta, you do realize your sacred Democrats allow government 'stimulus' contracts to off-shore 100% of contract work? nice to know my taxes, designated for US job creation, go to pay for jobs in India.

Unfortunately, there's a reason for that...because the WTO says that "Buy American" provisions are illegal.

 

I'm conflicted on this matter. Sometimes the WTO does well, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Of course, if we had developed a legitimate clean energy manufacturing setup over the last decade instead of letting Germany and China develop it, then the money would have stayed here anyway.

[mr_genius]

Unfortunately, there's a reason for that...because the WTO says that "Buy American" provisions are illegal.

 

 

no one follows those rules except the US

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...ionism-row.html

 

China has issued a ‘Buy Chinese’ order as part of its £400bn government stimulus package.

 

The edict, issued from the highest level of China’s government, comes less than six months after China described the short-lived ‘Buy American’ clauses in the US stimulus package as “protectionist poison” that would undermine the world economic recovery.

 

The government order, issued by nine Chinese ministries and the legislative office of the State Council, China’s cabinet, requires government-backed stimulus projects to seek explicit permission before buying foreign goods and services.

 

 

 

Of course, if we had developed a legitimate clean energy manufacturing setup over the last decade instead of letting Germany and China develop it, then the money would have stayed here anyway.

 

Well how are going to do that? using government money to fund or encourage clean energy production in the US is protectionist and illegal. it's also just downright mean.

[Balta1701]

Well how are going to do that? using government money to fund or encourage clean energy production in the US is protectionist and illegal. it's also just downright mean.

No it's not. The classic example is wind power and what happened to it during the Bush administration, where 3 times there were subsidies passed for it that jump started a lot of American manufacturing for wind that year, and then the next year the subsidy wasn't renewed, so all of the new manufacturing went out of business.

 

(And let's not go down the road of pretending that fossil fuels don't receive massive subsidies in response).

 

Anyway, you're somewhat right though, the U.S. certianly seems to me to follow WTO rules more than other countries do.

[mr_genius]

No it's not. The classic example is wind power and what happened to it during the Bush administration, where 3 times there were subsidies passed for it that jump started a lot of American manufacturing for wind that year, and then the next year the subsidy wasn't renewed, so all of the new manufacturing went out of business.

 

But if you only give subsidies to companies that manufacture in the US, it is protectionism. It is the same as 'buy American'. Other countries would boo hoo, whine, and make empty threats until the US gave in. For it to be 'non-protectionist' the subsidy would include purchases of all renewable energy producing devices, no matter where they are manufactured.

 

GW Bush was just being a noble globalist. it would very unfair for those US manufacturers to get subsidies.

Edited August 1, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

But if you only give subsidies to companies that manufacture in the US, it is protectionism. It is the same as 'buy American'. Other countries would boo hoo, whine, and make empty threats until the US gave in. For it to be 'non-protectionist' the subsidy would include purchases of all renewable energy producing devices, no matter where they are manufactured.

 

GW Bush was just being a noble globalist. it would very unfair for those US manufacturers to get subsidies.

Well, we could always respond by saying "screw you, you've got Airbus".

 

More seriously...it's not fun shipping windmills overseas. They're the kind of thing that you build locally if you can. But when every time you open a manufacturing plant it gets shut down in 6 months because the government changes policy, that's terrifically bad industrial policy.

[Balta1701]

I really enjoyed this read, on the collapse of the American Middle Class.

 

It left me with a couple conflicted emotions though. The families that they profile, you have to feel some genuine sympathy for them. One of them, for example is dealing with an autistic child, and they've been put through the ringer of the health care system repeatedly screwing them over. On the other hand, both of the families they profile have incomes that are nearly a factor of 2 higher than mine, and somehow I've managed to put tens of times as much in savings as they have. I'm trying to figure out whether they just happened to be unlucky and not be rich enough to deal with our health care system, whether they just planned poorly financially, or whether it's both.

[Balta1701]

The Chinese real estate market sounds ridiculous.

The Anhui Salt Industry Corporation is a state-owned company that has 11,000 employees, access to government salt mines and a Communist Party boss.

 

Now it has swaggered into a new line of business: real estate.

 

The company is developing a complex of luxury high-rises here called Platinum Bay on a parcel it acquired last year by outbidding two other developers to win a local government land auction.

 

Anhui Salt is hardly alone among big state-owned companies. The China Railway Group is developing residential complexes in Beijing after winning the auction for a huge piece of land there.

 

Likewise, the China Ordnance Group, a state-led military manufacturer best known for amphibious assault weapons, paid $260 million for Beijing property where it plans to build luxury residences and retail outlets.

 

And in one of China’s biggest land deals yet, the state-run shipbuilder Sino Ocean paid $1.3 billion last December and March to buy two giant tracts from Beijing’s municipal government to develop residential communities.

[Balta1701]

Kap, you any good with Photoshop? I suggest an image of Timothy Geithner standing on an aircraft carrier with a sign behind him saying "Welcome to the recovery".

 

Seriously, WTF Geithner? "Welcome to the recovery" sounds like the article I'd write today if I wanted to ridicule policymakers for not having done enough, such that we're going to have stagnant growth for the next decade.

[kapkomet]

Good call. The guy is an idiot.

 

[Balta1701]

From the "gotta retain top talent" file...

During my long slog through the entire Lehman Examiner's Report, I came across lots of interesting-but-not-terribly-important bits of information, and I'm going to try to highlight my favorite ones. These two both come from the handwritten notes of Thomas Fontana, head of risk management in Citi's Global Financial Institutions group. The notes in question were taken during meetings at the New York Fed on the Sunday before Lehman failed (Sept. 14, 2008).

 

First, we learn that Vikram Pandit, CEO of one of the largest bank holding companies in the world (Citigroup), apparently didn't know what Section 23A was. For non-finance types, Section 23A is the law that governs transactions between commercial banks and their non-bank affiliates. If you've ever worked at a big bank, you know what 23A is — unless, apparently, you're the CEO. This definitely isn't a lawyers-only thing either — Fontana is a risk manager, and he was so surprised that he felt compelled to write, "VP [Vikram Pandit] doesn't know what 23A is?" Oh, Vikram.