It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

One of Greece’s biggest problems  is tax evasion, especially by the rich. By some estimates, Greece could wipe out its 2013 budget deficit if its 1,500 biggest scofflaws paid up. Bouchoutsos has paid his taxes, partly because he wants to start a car-rental business. But he also faces a mountain of paperwork and tight credit. “We needed change, but now it has gone too far and is killing the private sector,” he says.



originally posted by: AlaskanDad

So once again I say:

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


and enforce it!



Which helps the case that authoritarian systems don't work for long.

Nobody is smart enough to enforce anything.

All failure.


edit on Nov-25-2014 by xuenchen because:





posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: macman


personal attack...

really please add something tangible to the discussion!



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc

paper on austerity flawed



Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


Okay. Let me repeat this. You said that the paper CAUSED austerity in Greece. All you have shown is that other researchers claim that there were errors in the exel spreadsheet of one study. You have neither shown that the premise was invalid nor have you shown that the paper CAUSED the austerity.

Your "source" was just a link to a search about it. You didn't even read any of those articles did you? Because if you did you would have seen this:



At the same time, one of the co-authors, Ash, told Businessweek that the new paper, in examining the 2010 study, did indicate a modest diminishment in growth in countries suffering large debts but not like the stagnation or decline in the study by the Harvard authors.




They didn't say the premise was wrong, just "not as bad." They still support the premise that large debt harms the economy. Paper

And this:


"The [European] Commission’s economic policy recommendations are not based on any single piece of research," EU Commissioner Rehn wrote on his blog. A "pertinent policy conclusion from this academic debate," he added, is that "to achieve sustainable growth, the rising public debt must be contained with consistent, medium-term fiscal policies, aiming at a gradual adjustment."





For example, the German official says, "reforms in the Euro peripheral countries are working, as evidenced by the decline in labor costs and the increase in exports from those countries." And in his blog, Rehn wrote that "Europe is making headway" with regard to structural reforms.

But other policymakers disagree. "You do not need to be an expert to see that there were mostly tax increases and very few actual reforms," says Claudio Morganti, an Italian member of the European Parliament.

Although expert views on reforms in Europe vary, most agree that the reforms enacted so far have only partially filled the gap of what needs to be done.

"Governments and taxes are not the solution. We need more competitiveness and small businesses," says Sampo Terho, a Finnish member of the European Parliament. "This is a problem in both southern and northern European countries."


Article




At the same time, Reinhart-Rogoff isn't the only study finding that high debt levels are associated with low growth. A 2010 paper (pdf) from the IMF, for instance, found that "a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being somewhat smaller in advanced economies."



All from the list of searched citations that you obviously didn't read because all of those cited contradict your point.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: macman


personal attack...

really please add something tangible to the discussion!


Again. Ironic post is ironic. Posting a link to a results of a search on something without actually reading or providing certain citations from articles is not "adding something substantial."



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The Greek Ministry of finance, in a report readable by pdf HERE, puts the causes of the economic crisis on 5 principle failures of the Greek Government:



GDP growth rates: After 2008, GDP growth rates were lower than the Greek national statistical agency had anticipated. In the official report, the Greek ministry of finance reports the need for implementing economic reforms to improve competitiveness, among others by reducing salaries and bureaucracy,[27] and the need to redirect much of its current governmental spending from non-growth sectors (e.g. military) into growth stimulating sectors.


In summary:
1). Poor planning. Growth was not as expected.
2). Overspending. Government expense increased 87% but revenues only increased 31%
3). Debt. In order to keep the gravy train running. Greece borrowed much, much more than they could ever hope to afford or manage.
4). The budget. They didn't even follow the budget they had made and spent more.
5). Accountability. None. They didn't account for what they were spending, where it was going, and hid their malfeasance.

All of which started long before a single paper was published in Harvard.
edit on 25-11-2014 by Crakeur because: Edited down the excessive quote



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: macman


personal attack...

really please add something tangible to the discussion!


Already did. Can't help it that YOU require what you require...............to show common sense.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: macman


personal attack...

really please add something tangible to the discussion!


Already did. Can't help it that YOU require what you require...............to show common sense.



Radical ideology often not only clouds common sense, but also facts and history.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Your "source" was just a link to a search about it. You didn't even read any of those articles did you? Because if you did you would have seen this:


Rather than making a page full of quotes in reply to your post, I chose to let you see just how many articles there were supporting my point, Out of the hundreds of articles you chose to cherry pick a couple that support your point, then accuse me of wrong doing for adding a link that shows many sides to the story.



Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I say do away with income and property taxes all together for everyone.

The problem is not that "they" have too much, but rather that we dont have enough of what is ours by natural law.

They would just find a way to not pay taxes and be vindicated by saying they pay 90% on paper. Many of our wealthy would just leave the country and we would be screwed.

I say no taxes but sales taxes. Also, restructure the IRS, remove the fed and allow people to earn 100% of what they earn.

I dont hate the top 1%. I have issues with the government.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
This is a terrible idea. First off, those in the top few percent would find other ways to be compensated (stock options, padding expense reports, perks, etc.)

Second, let's take a quick breakout of how this will affect certain industries. I'm going to make a few off the cuff calculations for the marginal percentage. Note how the percentage increases faster the higher the income.

+100,000 - 30%
+150,000 - 35%
+200,000 - 40%
+250,000 - 45%
+300,000 - 50%
+350,000 - 60%
+400,000 - 75%
+450,000 - 90%

Let's assume now that I have just graduated from Harvard Law School. I am only about $320,000 in debt, having managed to pay my way via scholarships, etc. through my undergrad.

I get a job making 175k a year as a junior associate in a law firm in New York. I'm doing better than most of my class, btw.

After taxes, I"m bringing in 121,250. (and working 18 hour days, so my hourly take home pay is like $27)

Now, I've got to pay crazy Manhattan rent, median is $4,000. But, since I have to be near my firm, let's call it $5,000.

Rent - 60,000

I've also go to repay my loans!

Loans - 20,000

Let's not forget that food, coffee, and alcohol are all required in large quantities to fuel my 18 hour work days.

Food/Starbucks/Booze - 15,000

This leaves me with around 2k a month for transportation, entertainment, clothes, health insurance, utilities, and savings.


I agree that this is kind of an odd case, but let's have another. Major League Basketball players.

I sign two different players, with considerably different levels of skills.

Geordi LaForge is a rookie with promise, but still green. I decide to pay him 4 million a year on a five year contract.
William Riker is an experienced player at the height of his earning potential. I have him on a 10 million a year contract for the next 3 years.

Let's see what they take home.

Geordie - 607,500
Riker - 1,207,500

So instead of throwing over 8 million of my 10 million in salary expenses to the government, I'll do something clever.

I'll give them each a certain percentage of what I call "players club tickets". Each ticket is worth 5 cents now. Geordi will get 4,000,000 tickets a year, and Riker will get 10,000,000 tickets a year. I'll also throw in a small salary and travelling expenses.

Now, the day that Riker's contract is up, I've agreed to pay him $1 for each of his player's club tickets. So I pay him $30,000,000, he pays capital gains, and the Federal government cries itself to sleep.

If we increase the capital gains tax to 90%, all the money in the U.S. will immediately flow out to other countries, so we can't do that. What we've managed to accomplish is we've now forced rich people to avoid taxes in any way possible rather than to the extent that it's convenient for them.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc




Your "source" was just a link to a search about it. You didn't even read any of those articles did you? Because if you did you would have seen this:


Rather than making a page full of quotes in reply to your post, I chose to let you see just how many articles there were supporting my point, Out of the hundreds of articles you chose to cherry pick a couple that support your point, then accuse me of wrong doing for adding a link that shows many sides to the story.



Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


But that's not true. I just took the articles from page one of your search and none of them supported what you said. You didn't realize that because you didn't bother to read them.

A wall of article headlines does not a point make.

You said that the Harvard paper caused the Greek financial crisis. You were wrong and the articles YOU presented to me said that.

You said that the UMass paper disproved the principle behind the Harvard paper but the article YOU presented to me quoted the authors of the UMass paper who said that the principles of the Harvard paper were not invalid, just that the effects were less than supposed. The very authors of the single paper you hang your premise on said that.

Sloppy research with lack of reading, lack of comprehension, and conclusions that are not even supported by the very evidence you put out there.
edit on 25-11-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




You said that the Harvard paper caused the Greek financial crisis. You were wrong and the articles YOU presented to me said that.


Could you please show a quote of my saying that?




A wall of article headlines does not a point make.


So I am wrong for posting a search link showing there are two side to this coin? :rollseyes:


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: sdubya




Food/Starbucks/Booze - 15,000




This leaves me with around 2k a month for transportation, entertainment, clothes, health insurance, utilities, and savings.


that $39,000


According to their data table (which you can see here), 66.2% of wage earners make netted less than or equal to $39.959.30. A raw average. They calculated the median of that raw average to be $26,363.55— and that's the net compensation of 50% of Americans.


source


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



edit on 25-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: removed code from copy paste



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes, see how far $39k goes in Manhattan. Did I mention the 18 hour days? I bet I could make an extra 40k or so if I got a second full time job, too.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc




You said that the Harvard paper caused the Greek financial crisis. You were wrong and the articles YOU presented to me said that.


Could you please show a quote of my saying that?


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


Top of page 12:



Many countries are living with austerity because a couple conservatives, who were mathematically challenged wrote a paper saying debt would destroy nations economy. Only to find out later that they made a simple addition mistake, that when corrected destroyed their whole hypothesis.



You said they are living in austerity because of the paper.

Let's look at your sentence, shall we?

"Many countries are living with austerity." They have suckage for an economy.

"Because." Causal effect. Because= for the reason that; since.

" couple conservatives, who were mathematically challenged wrote a paper saying debt would destroy nations economy."

You said because of the paper, they were in austerity.

Are you not bothering to read your own writings, much less articles you "cite?"



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

So I am wrong for posting a search link showing there are two side to this coin? :rollseyes:




You did not do that. You did not say, "Here, let me post a bunch of articles that show both sides of the story." Nope, you spewed something then add a link that said "source." Only when I pointed out that the articles do not say what you thought they said, did you start binging up this "both sides" nonsense.

You have not argued both sides of this debate the entire thread so it is laughable to think you suddenly wanted to present sources for "both sides."



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Also, 2K a month is 24,000. Unless I did my math wrong somewhere, which is possible.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: sdubya




Food/Starbucks/Booze - 15,000




This leaves me with around 2k a month for transportation, entertainment, clothes, health insurance, utilities, and savings.


that $39,000


According to their data table (which you can see here), 66.2% of wage earners make netted less than or equal to $39.959.30. A raw average. They calculated the median of that raw average to be $26,363.55— and that's the net compensation of 50% of Americans.


source


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!




So? Does the average wage earner put in 18 hour days like he does? Also 2k per month is $24,000, so your maths are just as bad as your article reading.

Here, let me help since apparently they use different math in Alaska. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000

edit on 25-11-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spin and twist,

you can dance!

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spin and twist,

you can dance!

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!




You obfuscate. Did you or did you not say that and did you or did you not attempt to deny that you said that? You are dodging direct and referenced points now, I see.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join