Wealthy Are Dumping Assets Fast Before Year's End... Including Their Business Or Maybe Your Job

As for those greedy enterprises that laid off staff and hopes to survive by forcing remaning workers to triple the output so that employers and shareholders can get fat on the good life for themselves - my advice - close down and GET LOST TOO!!

You aint gonna survive.

Salary and better benefits is what that's gonna keep your workers helping you profit. Cut wages, and they will leave for better pastures, as the economy grows.

Furthermore, with lower staff and driven with a whip, it only means lower productivity while others whom will pay better wages and benefits to compete productively will win.

WIth forthcoming tax incentives, better protection for local industries, tech and funding, cheating employers can kiss their Ferraris goodbye. No tears will be shed. IRS awaits to deduct any unconscionable hoarding you had made off the backs of hardworking americans.

Be glad USA aint commie China. In China, they shoot traitors and the greed, as well as making their families pay the bullets. In USA, they just dig through your tax records, and let you have the Ferrari if you had done nothing wrong and truly deserve that car, even if workers know for sure that they were the ones who helped you through the years and yet were robbed blind by you while helping you.

Whatever the darkness the elites hopes to instill fear upon workers now is ony the full darkness just before dawn. And the new dawn has arrived, not mere words, but facts as USA had not ended capitalism, but only to regulate it better for all - a fairer system for both employees and employers, than Alan Greespan 'free hand of market' lies.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by micmerci
...And they all said 'just tax the wealthy more, that'll fix the problem'. They wont sell off assets. They won't slow the economy. They won't hand out massive layoffs and take their businesses elsewhere. This will work trust me.

Yeah right

Oh, and BTW, blaming Obama for this is so asinine it's unreal! You do realize that Romney would have to face EXACTLY the same problem as president too, right? That was one reason I actually wanted Romney to win, because he would have enraged so many rabid Republicans with the actions he would have HAD TO TAKE regardless of the corporate idiocy of his party.

Ummm...I checked and double checked my post and for the life of me I could not see any mention of OBAMA in it.

Originally posted by jtma508
WTF people??? Look at what tax rates were in the pre-Bush years? This isn't tax armegeddon. Up to 39%. That's just over HALF what it was back in the 60's. The economy was booming during the Clinton years... the upper tax rate was 39.6%. Under Regan it started out at 70%. He lowered that percentage year by year from 70% => 50% => 38.5% => 28%. But he also lowered the floor of the top tier thereby pushoing the top tax bracket into the middle class $212K => $106K => $90k => $29,750. And then we had a recession.

Bush lowered the top tier from 39.6% to 35%. Where did THAT get us? A super recession. And during that time although the economy imploded, the top 1% accreted more wealth than at any other time in history. So much for lower top tier tax rates creating jobs.

Net Job gain/loss:

2001: -3.1M
2002: -432K
2003: +18K
2004: +2.1M
2005: +2.1M
2006: +1.7M
2007: +744K
2008: -3.6M
2009: -5.5M
2010: +1.3M
2011: +1.9M

So with the all-so-important Bush tax cuts helping businesses hire we only LOST 3.6M jobs.

Research it yourselves. Try and correlate top-tier tax rates with job creation and economic expansion. I dare you.

That is incorrect. Under the Reagan tax plan we had the boom of the 80's and set up the tech boom of the 90's. Under Bush, we had 6 straight years of steady growth and 2007 had the most revenue to the Federal government in the history of the nation with the top marginal income tax rate at 35%.

reply to post by davcwebb


What the wealthy to do let the dying middle class keep financing the poor and elderly under Obamacare because we go nowhere to go and thrive while the wealthy can always find the loopholes to avoid taxes while thriving in oversea markets where they are very much welcome and never get penalized to do that.

As usual we the working class are the ones to pay the piper at the end

Originally posted by NavyDoc

That is incorrect. Under the Reagan tax plan we had the boom of the 80's and set up the tech boom of the 90's. Under Bush, we had 6 straight years of steady growth and 2007 had the most revenue to the Federal government in the history of the nation with the top marginal income tax rate at 35%.

Reganomics was the biggest blunder in the US history that opened the door to the economic mess we got today

U.S. History: Income Distribution and Reaganomics

Reaganomics Debate; Inequality in Income Distribution, Government Policies and Corporate Restructuring

No real credible argument has been made that the Reagan years did anything to improve the equality of income distribution. Both sides of the Reaganomic fence provide more than enough evidence in support of the argument that says: lower and middle class America lost significant ground during the 1980s. I must add at this point that the "U-turn" in America's economics actually began during the 1970s; Reagan only sped up and expanded the process significantly ("U-turn"- the term used by Bluestone and Harrison to describe the reversal of fortune of the labor forces and the shrinking middle class).

Yeah, the middle class that Regan forgot about it in order to push his agenda since then the middle class has been eroding so much that is now a dying breed and dangerous species in America.

Since the mid-1960s through the 1990s, Americans have been getting poorer and poorer. The wage-gap between the America lower income group and the upper or rich America group has been ever increasing. Reminiscent of the 1920s and 1930s, the middle class, formerly the largest class of the post WWII through the Vietnam War era has also been ever decreasing in size. By the mid-1970s global competition was eating away at American business profits. U.S. businesses began discarding their standard practices and shifted capital into overtly speculative ventures. They increased offshore investments and began outsourcing for labor and manufacturing in search of the lowest labor and production costs.

voices.yahoo.com...

Obama plan to tax the rich is also another blunder in the making they just move their money oversea along with their businesses.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You must be looking at different data than I am. Based on GDP there was no '6 straight years of growth' and as I already pointed out certainly no 6 straight years of job growth under Bush. GDP by year . And how can you say that the Regan years 'set-up' the 90's boom? The 80's clearly trended down and ended in 'Black Monday' on October 1987 when "a stock collapse of unprecedented size caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall by 22.6%. This collapse, larger than that of 1929, was handled well by the economy, and the stock market began to quickly recover. However, in North America, the lumbering savings and loans industry was beginning to collapse, leading to a savings and loan crisis which put the financial wellbeing of millions of Americans in jeopardy." The ensuing recession of 90/91 (that I poiunt out in my post) lasted 8mos. The '90s boom' didn't even start until '92.

Where do you people live?

This explains things well:

Is Raising Marginal Tax Rates on Higher Income Individuals a Good Idea? Becker


Newly elected French President Francois Hollande campaigned on a promise to raise the marginal tax rate to 75% on individuals making more than 1 million euros. President Obama wants to increase marginal tax rates on high-income individuals to their level before the Bush tax cuts. Obama defines “high” as anyone making over $250,000 per year. Neither the modern history of high tax rates, economic analysis, or their consequences for the budget deficit and income redistribution indicates that raising taxes on higher income individuals are a good idea.

A few decades ago, tax rates on higher incomes were at least 70% not only in high taxing Scandinavian countries, but also in the United States (where the top rate was 91% in 1960) and many other countries where government spending took a relatively small share of GDP. The widespread avoidance and evasion of such high taxes through sophisticated accounting methods, reduced work effort, and even in countries like Sweden through outright barter for services and goods, led to a world wide revolution toward flatter and much lower tax rates. The bi-partisan tax accord in the US in the 1980’s reduced the top income tax rate to 28% (the top rate was 33% for a fraction of high income persons), and even Sweden lowered its top income tax rate to about 55%. Since aside from the Great Recession, GDP has grown quite rapidly during the decades subsequent to the tax reduction movement, why is there growing pressure to raise tax rates again on the so-called “rich”?

From the academic side, support for raising taxes on higher income individuals mainly comes from evidence on individual behavior over the lifecycle. This evidence suggests that labor supply does not respond very much to changes in after-tax earnings (see a good survey of this issue in Meghir and Phillips, “Labor Supply and Taxes”, 2010). Yet evidence on aggregate labor supply, such as the differences in hours worked among countries with different levels of taxes, suggests that workers spend considerably more hours working when marginal tax rates on their incomes are lower.

A recent article in the Journal of Economic Literature tries to reconcile the micro and macro based conclusions by arguing that the micro evidence gives a biased picture of aggregate labor supply responses (see Keane and Rogerson, “Micro and Macro Labor Supply Elasticities: A Reassessment of Conventional Wisdom”, June 2012). One of the factors in their reconciliation comes from the importance of on the job investments in human capital. These investments bias downwards the micro estimates of labor supply elasticities that are based on variations in hours worked over the lifecycle. This bias is especially large at younger ages where most of these investments occur since the true earnings at these ages is much larger than the observed wages at these ages because younger workers are raising their future wages through investments in their human capital. This bias helps explain why computed elasticities of labor supply are usually greater for older workers.

A second important bias shows up especially in the difference between the labor responses of men and women. It has long been known that women respond more to higher tax rates on their (family) earnings because many women then leave the labor force entirely rather than simply adjusting their hours worked. As Keane and Rogerson show, such decisions to enter or leave the labor force can greatly increase the aggregate labor response to changes in tax rates.

These and other corrections to simple interpretations of the micro evidence on labor responses to changes in tax rates clearly suggest that aggregate labor responses to tax rates may be quite large. Moreover, as welfare economics shows, raising tax rates by only a few percentage points on a sizable tax rate base- as in President Obama’s proposal- will tend to have large costs in efficiency even when the elasticity of response to the tax increase is relatively small.

I would not argue, however, that the evidence conclusively proves that the higher taxes proposed would do significant damage. Suppose then to be conservative that there is only a 50-50 chance (I believe the true probability is much more than 50-50) that the tax increases proposed by Hollande and Obama would sizably reduce hours worked and the effort put into work relative to the magnitude of the tax increases, and would cause sizable loses in efficiency relative to the additional revenue raised. Would such probabilities justify much higher tax rates?

To answer this question, one has to consider the potential benefits and costs of raising taxes on higher income individuals, and determine whether expected benefits exceed expected costs. If higher taxes on the rich only slightly affected their work effort (the usual assumption in revenue calculations), tax revenue would rise, but not by a lot since the great majority of revenue comes from taxes on the other 98% of taxpayers. With only a little increase in revenue under the most favorable conditions about labor supply responses, such tax increases would do little to close the budget deficit, and not much additional revenue would be available to redistribute to lower income families.

Higher taxes on the so-called “rich” would likely reduce after tax income inequality. The sizable growth in earnings and income inequality since 1980, especially at the high-income end, is one of the forces behind the movement toward higher taxes on the “rich”. In particular, many people are upset about CEOs getting high bonuses and stock options even when there companies are doing badly, or bankers getting their very high options and bonuses even after they made such bad decisions that contributed to the financial crisis. I have sympathy with these concerns, but the way to attack these problems is not to raise the taxes on everyone earning more than $250,000. For professionals and small business owners, not workers in the financial and banking sectors, constitute the great majority of persons in that higher income bracket. The best way to meet these concerns is by further improving corporate governance, and by formulating effective rules-based banking regulations that discourage the too big to fail banks from taking on excessive risks, and hence unjustified compensation.

So the gain in tax revenue from higher taxes on richer individuals would not be great even in the chance that these taxes only slightly discourage their hours worked and effort at work. But the cost to the economy in the chance that higher taxes greatly discourage their effort (relative to the magnitude of the tax increase) is likely to be substantial in terms of fewer hours worked and less work effort by high income individuals, reduced incentives to start businesses, less investments in their human capital, investing abroad rather than in the US or other countries that raised these taxes, and even migration abroad, especially in countries like France where many talented Frenchmen are already working in Britain, the US, and other countries.

So I conclude that even with considerable uncertainty about how much higher taxes on higher-income individuals would reduce their work effort and their investments, the expected gain from raising these taxes is likely to be negative. The trend toward lower marginal tax rates during the past 50 years was perhaps mainly the result of interest group pressure from higher income individuals, but it also receives support from a benefit-cost analysis of the expected effects of tax increases on behavior.

www.becker-posner-blog.com...

reply to post by NavyDoc


I'll see your becker-posner blog and raise you anti-becker-posner

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You must be looking at different data than I am. Based on GDP there was no '6 straight years of growth' and as I already pointed out certainly no 6 straight years of job growth under Bush. GDP by year . And how can you say that the Regan years 'set-up' the 90's boom? The 80's clearly trended down and ended in 'Black Monday' on October 1987 when "a stock collapse of unprecedented size caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall by 22.6%. This collapse, larger than that of 1929, was handled well by the economy, and the stock market began to quickly recover. However, in North America, the lumbering savings and loans industry was beginning to collapse, leading to a savings and loan crisis which put the financial wellbeing of millions of Americans in jeopardy." The ensuing recession of 90/91 (that I poiunt out in my post) lasted 8mos. The '90s boom' didn't even start until '92.

Where do you people live?

In reality.




YOu can see here that GPD grew both with Reagan and Bush:

reply to post by jtma508


I you are talking about Bush Jr, I have to disagree, remember when the market crash happen it was at the end of the Bush Jr. era, GDP are skewed numbers, GDP was never to be the only indicator in the overall health of a nations economy.

You know how much Bush sugar coated numbers, at the end look what happen, sadly many here in ATS talk about the economic mess in the making but nobody listened

I remember when Bush used to boast how solid the economy was

meanwhile most of our manufacturing was already oversea.

I guess 2008 never happen.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
By all means, PLEASE LEAVE, and prove that the rich are foolish as well.

To give up the open market is to leave the market to competitors. Capitalists are as expendable as any other corporate entity in USA.

You leave, another will take your place, and reap whatever you had foolishly or ineptly left behind. The world stops for no one.

And as you had been selfish in not paying your taxes and paying right to americans - GET THE HELL OUT!!!

And leave the new market opportunities for genuine americans to share wealth together, on american soil, with tax incentives, funding, innovation and international partnerships/protection.

FINALLY, the exploitive rich are leaving...never thought I would be alive to see this day.

We should throw them a bon voyage party to which they won't be invited.

I agree, Oh and Florida is giving some discounts to veterans for commercial fishing license...I hope some corporate commercial fishers quit, I'll be sooooo happy to take their place, and I love the water and fishing I'd be happy as a pig in you-know-what!

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I'll see your becker-posner blog and raise you anti-becker-posner

And I'll call you with a little Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.

"it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." John F. Kennedy.

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
By all means, PLEASE LEAVE, and prove that the rich are foolish as well.

To give up the open market is to leave the market to competitors. Capitalists are as expendable as any other corporate entity in USA.

You leave, another will take your place, and reap whatever you had foolishly or ineptly left behind. The world stops for no one.

And as you had been selfish in not paying your taxes and paying right to americans - GET THE HELL OUT!!!

And leave the new market opportunities for genuine americans to share wealth together, on american soil, with tax incentives, funding, innovation and international partnerships/protection.

FINALLY, the exploitive rich are leaving...never thought I would be alive to see this day.

We should throw them a bon voyage party to which they won't be invited.

I agree, Oh and Florida is giving some discounts to veterans for commercial fishing license...I hope some corporate commercial fishers quit, I'll be sooooo happy to take their place, and I love the water and fishing I'd be happy as a pig in you-know-what!

Don't do that, because if you buy a fishing boat and get a commercial fishing license, you will become one of those evil business owners.

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by davcwebb

 

It only shows how greedy the wealthy are, all they care about is their wealth. Their employees are just a means to that wealth

Businesses have no obligation to their employees other than paying them an agreed upon remuneration for the hours worked.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You do realize the second graph is showing debt against the % of GDP, right? Not GDP.

Originally posted by jtma508
WTF people??? Look at what tax rates were in the pre-Bush years? This isn't tax armegeddon. Up to 39%. That's just over HALF what it was back in the 60's. The economy was booming during the Clinton years... the upper tax rate was 39.6%. Under Regan it started out at 70%. He lowered that percentage year by year from 70% => 50% => 38.5% => 28%. But he also lowered the floor of the top tier thereby pushoing the top tax bracket into the middle class $212K => $106K => $90k => $29,750. And then we had a recession.

Bush lowered the top tier from 39.6% to 35%. Where did THAT get us? A super recession. And during that time although the economy imploded, the top 1% accreted more wealth than at any other time in history. So much for lower top tier tax rates creating jobs.

Net Job gain/loss:

2001: -3.1M
2002: -432K
2003: +18K
2004: +2.1M
2005: +2.1M
2006: +1.7M
2007: +744K
2008: -3.6M
2009: -5.5M
2010: +1.3M
2011: +1.9M

So with the all-so-important Bush tax cuts helping businesses hire we only LOST 3.6M jobs.

Research it yourselves. Try and correlate top-tier tax rates with job creation and economic expansion. I dare you.

Great post man, finally someone denying ignorance!
What you have posted co-incides with what Ben Stien has been saying for quite some time as well (that was another thread on here) that tax rates have been low for quite a while now!
Props! Great post.

reply to post by NavyDoc


No I won't I won't be a corporation I will remain a small business.
Unlike most I don't need to be filthy rich, I just want to be able to live and have the bare necessities I need...I don't like a lot of "stuff"

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You do realize the second graph is showing debt against the % of GDP, right? Not GDP.

ANd if you do look at the blue line, that is GDP, you do see it is steadily rising for those time periods mentioned, do you not?