Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Musings About Redistribution of Wealth in America

Musings About Redistribution of Wealth in America
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 03:40 AM
 
So, last weekend Barack Hussein Obama lowered the definition of rich from $250,000 to $200,000, and then that policy change was followed by Joseph "Stalin-Lite" Biden's comment lowering the bar again from $200,000 to $150,000. It certainly didn't take long for these collectivist puke demagogues to renege on their promise and redefine rich, now did it? If they're elected, and their definition of rich dips down to $100,000, and eventually into the high four figures, perhaps most of those who voted for this nightmare ticket will regret their choice. Or maybe not.

Greg Gutfeld (yes, of FNC's Red Eye) brought up a good point tonight: It's amazing that BHO has been able to sell so many Americans on his Socialist proposals given the fact that the current economic downturn was caused predominately by the Sub-Prime Contagion, which in truth was a grand experiment in wealth redistribution. The government and leftist pressure groups cajoled banks into expanding their sub-prime lending as a way to get more of the lower-income bracket in the home ownership class. These policies transferred wealth (homes) into the hands of those who couldn't sustain their payments. Even President Bush was deceived into supporting sub-prime, but to his credit he did call for reform a few years before the fit hit the shan. Even Bill Clinton and Alec Baldwin - liberal icons - recognize that much of the blame for sub-prime falls on the left.

So now, after the fall-out of that grand experiment of wealth redistribution, which resulted in the most dramatic episode of wealth destruction in contemporary times, the American people are poised to elect a leftist radical who has always firmly believed in wealth redistribution and inequality under the law for the "rich," and will pursue those policies on a scale unrivaled in American history. What will undoubtedly result from an Obama presidency is the destruction of most of the remaining wealth in the world, which will adversely affect American standard of living and the position of power America enjoys in the world. After all, Obama's Socialist policies added to the ticking time bomb of existing Entitlements assures us of economic calamity in a small number of years. There is no question that Communists have wanted these things to happen for a long long time, but is this really what Americans want? We'll find out in six days.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Oct 29, 2008 at 04:15 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 04:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What will undoubtedly result from an Obama presidency is the destruction of most of the remaining wealth in the world

Well, if this happens, let me be the first to say "oopsie".
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 04:17 AM
 
McCain also follows a social economics policy. Any of his policies that endorse tax cuts also shift wealth, plain and simple.

Unless your tax policy is a simple tax where everyone pays the same exact dollar amount, you're a social economist, and you shouldn't open your mouth about wealth redistribution.

(Ironically, under socialism, everyone does pay the same amount in taxes, which should be your clue that neither Obama's or McCain's social economics is really socialism...)
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 04:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Unless your tax policy is a simple tax where everyone pays the same exact dollar amount, you're a social economist, and you shouldn't open your mouth about wealth redistribution.
That's a cute dodge, but it's also patently false and nonsensical. A progressive income tax is not the same as wealth redistribution policy. Do some research, and try harder next time to form a cogent argument.

(Ironically, under socialism, everyone does pay the same amount in taxes, which should be your clue that neither Obama's or McCain's social economics is really socialism...)
Uh huh. Why don't you read this article about the USSR from 1988 and tell me if you still want to make that claim. Or are we to believe that the USSR wasn't truly Socialist for enacting a progressive tax? I can guarantee you that Socialist countries have had progressive income taxes in order to balance out their economies and punish their most productive citizens. And to the extent that "everyone does pay the same amount in taxes" in Socialist countries, that would be true because Socialist countries try to place income caps on their common citizens; under those conditions there is no opportunity to even have a progressive tax scheme.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 05:30 AM
 
As much as I'm no big fan of Obama's socialistic tendencies, once again, I think people assign him WAY too much power. Destroying most of the wealth of the entire world, is it now? Bit of a stretch?

The thing I dislike most about naive politicians, is just that- they're hopelessly naive. They'll never outsmart the majority of people, least of all those with the most money, power and influence and the will that got them those things in the first place. The people that naive politicians look at as mere cash cows, are smarter and far more clever than the Obamas of this world ever will be.

If the worst of the doomsday scenarios of naive socialist bureaucrats able to enact the most wretched of policies designed to "redistribute wealth" ever come to pass, many among the rich simply won't stick around for it- unless there's expressly something in it for them. That is unless the socialists can also manage to take away everyone's freedom as well.

The rich will simply take their money, their companies, their jobs, pack it up, and put it beyond Obama's or any other hack bureaucrat's reach.

And because money talks, there will always be plenty of places on earth willing to take what idiots in this country chase out. Obama couldn't destroy the world's wealth if he tried- true wealth is the knowledge, skill, shrewdness, inventiveness, willpower and drive of the citizens, and there's no way to destroy that, or stop it from being what it is. People will continue to have great ideas, and then find the ways of making them happen. If Obama were to somehow have the power of making the US not the best place for that- then people will take their ideas and all the wealth those ideas generate, elsewhere.

Because all socialist pie-in-the sky boondoggles revolve around consuming mountains of cash generated by the very people that are targeted to foot all the bills, the same socialists will also be IN BED with the richest of the rich, and scratching their every itch. How can you pretend to redistribute wealth, if there is none to redistribute?

What is more likely to happen is that once all the pie in the sky campaign rhetoric dies down, Obama, like every political hack before him will be IN BED with the richest of the rich, scratching their backs, and lining his pockets and theirs. It's the middle class that will get hammered to pay for all the nonsense. It's the middle class that will suffer higher unemployment rates, lower wages, etc. etc. Socialism doesn't kill off the rich- the rich just find ways to either avoid it, or make it work for them, and the middle class takes it in the shorts.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Oct 29, 2008 at 06:05 AM. )
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
As much as I'm no big fan of Obama's socialistic tendencies, once again, I think people assign him WAY too much power. Destroying most of the wealth of the entire world, is it now? Bit of a stretch?
If he gets elected, he's going to have a hard-left Congress allied with him, and there's going to be nothing to stop an Pelosi-Reed-Obama from passing any legislation their narrow, hyper-partisan, leftist little minds can think up. And that's particularly true if they get a filibuster proof majority. Nothing at all to stop them. Nothing at all to stop them from confirming leftist judges to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, which will have ramifications extending many decades. Heller v. D.C., which should have been a no-brainer for the Court, ended up 5-4. If that case had come up under an Obama administration and there had been a single Obama pick replacing one of the conservatives, the Second Amendment would have been destroyed. Obama and his leftist allies in Congress will have immense power over the destiny of the country if he gets voted into the White House.

The thing I dislike most about naive politicians, is just that- they're hopelessly naive. They'll never outsmart the majority of people, least of all those with the most money, power and influence and the will that got them those things in the first place. The people that naive politicians look at as mere cash cows, are smarter and far more clever than the Obamas of this world ever will be.
I really wish that were true, but if it were BHO wouldn't be the front-runner right now. The polling, if it's to be believed, indicates that the majority of Americans have indeed been outsmarted.

If the worst of the doomsday scenarios of naive socialist bureaucrats able to enact the most wretched of policies designed to "redistribute wealth" ever come to pass, many among the rich simply won't stick around for it- unless there's expressly something in it for them. That is unless the socialists can also manage to take away everyone's freedom as well.
What are they going to do if Obama's agenda gets pushed through and signed into law on day 10 of his administration? Are they going to flee the country, and if so where to? Aside from some of the wealthy Asian countries, America is the only country that offers a substantial amount of economic freedom. I don't know if too many Americans would be very economically competitive in a non-English speaking country. Sure, the billionaires will likely continue to be billionaires under most scenarios (that is, until they die and the revitalized death tax hits their children and grandchildren). The rest of us? We'll have to flee or learn to put up with a pale imitation of France or England.

The rich will simply take their money, their companies, their jobs, pack it up, and put it beyond Obama's or any other hack bureaucrat's reach.
Sounds like it's easier said than done.

And because money talks, there will always be plenty of places on earth willing to take what idiots in this country chase out. Obama couldn't destroy the world's wealth if he tried- true wealth is the knowledge, skill, shrewdness, inventiveness, willpower and drive of the citizens, and there's no way to destroy that, or stop it from being what it is. People will continue to have great ideas, and then find the ways of making them happen. If Obama were to somehow have the power of making the US not the best place for that- then people will take their ideas and all the wealth those ideas generate, elsewhere.
Look at how much wealth has been destroyed as a result of excessive sub-prime lending. Wealth destruction. The DOW was at 14,000 not too many months back, and a few days ago it looked like it was going to breach 8,000. However, it wasn't just America markets that were impacted - many of the major foreign stock markets took our crisis even harder. Look at a chart of the FTSE or any of the Asian exchanges.

The only investors who made money of off all that evaporated wealth was those who had the foresight to short the market near its highs or go long the $ over the last three months. Those who tried to find a haven in gold or oil got burned just recently. Even billionaire CEOs have lost billions, at least on paper. Most importantly, tens of millions of Americans lost out huge and are now worrying about their invested retirement accounts. The mega-rich will still prosper under almost any condition, and so will those who know how to take advantage of panics. The rest will get burned big time.

Because all socialist pie-in-the sky boondoggles revolve around consuming mountains of cash generated by the very people that are targeted to foot all the bills, the same socialists will also be IN BED with the richest of the rich, and scratching their every itch. How can you redistribute wealth, if there is none to redistribute?
They figure out how to do it in poor Socialist countries. Corrupt government officials get theirs, and the people live in squalor.

What is more likely to happen is that once all the pie in the sky campaign rhetoric dies down, Obama, like every political hack before him will be IN BED with the richest of the rich, scratching their backs, and lining his pockets and theirs. It's the middle class that will get hammered to pay for all the nonsense. It's the middle class that will suffer higher unemployment rates, lower wages, etc. etc. Socialism doesn't kill off the rich- the rich just find ways to either avoid it, or make it work for them, and the middle class takes it in the shorts.
That paragraph I essentially agree with, although I again will point out that one could be rich today by most anyone's standard (and especially the Obama-Biden standard) today and poor tomorrow if the institutions that people rely on implode.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Oct 29, 2008 at 06:15 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The rich will simply take their money, their companies, their jobs, pack it up, and put it beyond Obama's or any other hack bureaucrat's reach.
Nope. If Barry gets in, the places where they'd usually stash their money will no longer be open to them. The "Stop Tax Haven Abuse" Act will essentially see the rest of the world refusing to do business with Americans.

We can see this happening already: It's now almost impossible for an American to open a bank account in Switzerland.

Here's a little story for you: Mate of mine bought a house in France last month. Cash. Before they'd let him transfer the cash down there he had to fill out various forms along the lines of "I do not know any Americans, this money did not come from an American source, I've never lived in the US, I have no relations in the US, etc., etc..".

It's happening already. If Barry gets in you can expect a shortage of havens to run to. It's that simple.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:13 AM
 
So if I want to buy property in France, I can't because I'm an American while other foreign nationals can?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
So if I want to buy property in France, I can't because I'm an American while other foreign nationals can?
I think they'd probably let you eventually, but you'd have to jump through all sorts of hoops.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:28 AM
 
Here's some evidence of the "go away Americans, you're too risky" process:

http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/ban...s-account.html
If you are a citizen of one of the following countries you cannot open this account:
Afghanistan, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Congo-Brazzaville, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Liberia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, USA, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/ban...k-account.html
If you are a citizen of one of the following countries you cannot open this account:
Colombia, Nigeria, USA.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 06:56 AM
 
Wow, that's certainly a very distinguished list of third world countries we're part of.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
...Joseph "Stalin-Lite" Biden...these collectivist puke demagogues...
...and I stopped reading.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
If he gets elected, he's going to have a hard-left Congress allied with him, and there's going to be nothing to stop an Pelosi-Reed-Obama from passing any legislation their narrow, hyper-partisan, leftist little minds can think up. And that's particularly true if they get a filibuster proof majority. Nothing at all to stop them. Nothing at all to stop them from confirming leftist judges to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, which will have ramifications extending many decades. Heller v. D.C., which should have been a no-brainer for the Court, ended up 5-4. If that case had come up under an Obama administration and there had been a single Obama pick replacing one of the conservatives, the Second Amendment would have been destroyed. Obama and his leftist allies in Congress will have immense power over the destiny of the country if he gets voted into the White House.
I don't think a Congress with a lefty agenda will be good for the country by any stretch, but I just don't believe it will destroy the country or keep wealthy people from being wealthy- any more than leftists pretending the country is doomed when things shift to the right. Both sides have this tendency to overstate their fears of the other- we saw it for 8 years with the left pretending they live in a dictatorship because they hate Bush, and now I'm starting to see somewhat of the same hysteria coming from the right.

Take a step back for a moment- think of all the ridiculous claims the left have made about the country being doomed due to Bush and a Republican controlled congress. Many of them have been pretending to be living in a gulag even while they sip their lattes and post rantings on the internet about having no freedom of speech. Some of the more radical FUD about Obama sounds exactly the same.


I really wish that were true, but if it were BHO wouldn't be the front-runner right now. The polling, if it's to be believed, indicates that the majority of Americans have indeed been outsmarted.
Bah, I don't believe that. Again, giving the guy WAY too much credit. Almost like the people that call Bush the biggest idiot ever, but at the same time, the biggest mastermind of all time, able to pull off a 9/11 before lunch and taking away everyone's rights by mid afternoon. The reality is closer to: it's just someone to disagree with.

If Obama turns out to be half as bad as his detractors make him out to be, he'll be kicked out of office in 4 years to a Reagan style landslide for conservatives- kind of like President Peanut. If anything, lefty twits are good for revitalizing conservatism.

Personally, if he's smart, I think Obama would lay low a big for the first 4 years- try to pretend to be a moderate, like Clinton did. By the way, I remember hearing all the same fears about Clinton taking office as I hear about Obama now. What really happened? When Clinton even appeared to be too much of a lefty, and Shrillary tried her "let me take over your healthcare" ponzi scheme, the American people outsmarted them both by handing them a Republican congress.

Rampant leftist tripe actually doesn't fly with most Americans- unless the country really has changed all that much in a few years. If Obama came out and told everyone his REAL agenda- IE: if he was honest like Mondale was in '84- he'd be handed his ass on election day. Right now, he simply has a lot of people fooled with his nonsense about only taxing the rich. The rich are smart enough to know they won't really be paying any excessive taxes- they'll find dodges and ways to shield their money from stupid lefties. The middle class just has enough people that haven't figured out they're the REAL target- always have been, always will be.


What are they going to do if Obama's agenda gets pushed through and signed into law on day 10 of his administration? Are they going to flee the country, and if so where to? Aside from some of the wealthy Asian countries, America is the only country that offers a substantial amount of economic freedom.
Tell that to people I know that have already incorporated in Dubai, Hong Kong, and other places that aren't yet stupid enough to toss away money. When push comes to shove, money talks, bullshit walks. Socialists love to put on a big pretense about being for the little guy- but they love money most of all- lots and lots of other people's money is what they're ALL about. Doing whatever bending over to get that lots and lots of other people's money is what they're all about. The wealthiest of the wealthy know they'll have Obama in their pocket inside of a month. They won't have to go anywhere. They'll be partners. I'm not even saying Republicans are any better when it comes to the above- it's just that liberals LOVE their pretense that their leaders aren't the biggest whores to big money of all. It's all a crock.


I don't know if too many Americans would be very economically competitive in a non-English speaking country. Sure, the billionaires will likely continue to be billionaires under most scenarios (that is, until they die and the revitalized death tax hits their children and grandchildren). The rest of us? We'll have to flee or learn to put up with a pale imitation of France or England.
True- the "rest of us", meaning the middle class, will get socked with the real deal of a socialist agenda- it's the middle class that will really pay for everything. It's the middle class that will suffer from all the negatives- waiting lists for the "freebies" that aren't really free, increased unemployment (which is really part of the result of business shielding money that could otherwise be put into the economy if it were worth it to do so) lower wages and an even bigger strain on local social services from illegal workforces being invited in in droves and numerous job classes dumbed down to "Jobs Americans won't do because now they pay .50 an hour" - the middle class will get socked with all of it no matter what.

The saddest thing of all in this election cycle, is that McCain really wouldn't be much better for any of it. I think many of us have forgotten that he's a guy who wants an 'honest government' over the Constitution being enforced, and he earned his Maverick label by being a darling of the left, not the right.



Look at how much wealth has been destroyed as a result of excessive sub-prime lending. Wealth destruction.
Yes, but look how much was put right back into the pockets of some of the worst offenders in the form of massive bailouts- with lefties like Pelosi, Reed, Obama and others cheerleading it on. When push comes to shove, lefties are in bed with big business every bit as much as Republicans ever were. No matter what they wreck, they'll bail out their cronies. The real redistribution will just be from one set of ultra-rich cronies to another. The middle class won't see jack ****, and the poor will get tossed some scraps.


The DOW was at 14,000 not too many months back, and a few days ago it looked like it was going to breach 8,000. However, it wasn't just America markets that were impacted - many of the major foreign stock markets took our crisis even harder. Look at a chart of the FTSE or any of the Asian exchanges.

The only investors who made money of off all that evaporated wealth was those who had the foresight to short the market near its highs or go long the $ over the last three months. Those who tried to find a haven in gold or oil got burned just recently. Even billionaire CEOs have lost billions, at least on paper.
I might remind you that none of this is the fault of an Obama administration.


They figure out how to do it in poor Socialist countries. Corrupt government officials get theirs, and the people live in squalor.
Again, it's the middle class that take it in the shorts. In socialist hellholes, the ultra rich are even richer- they live like kings. Moderately wealthy people take their money, jobs, etc. and hit the highway. The middle class dies and becomes poor. Anyone with any any idea or skill that could lift them out of poverty is prevented from doing so.

I do share your belief that there are many leftists who WOULD love just such a scenario happening in the US, so long as they are in charge, and the ultra-wealthy are their cronies. I differ from you in that I just don't believe they'll ever pull it off, and certainly not in 4 or 8 years. Sure, there's a lot of slippery slope that might happen in that time, but not a complete dismantling of the capitalist system.

I'm certainly not saying it'll be all sunbeams and roses- just not the gloom and doom you clearly believe in. The country and its people are strong enough to survive, and outsmart the naivest of Obama schemes, just as it survived The Peanut and the Clintons.


That paragraph I essentially agree with, although I again will point out that one could be rich today by most anyone's standard (and especially the Obama-Biden standard) today and poor tomorrow if the institutions that people rely on implode.
Oh believe me, I agree with you that the definition of 'rich' will get defined downwards and downwards. OF COURSE- once again, it's the MIDDLE CLASS that really pays for socialist schemes- always, always, always.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Oct 29, 2008 at 02:21 PM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's some evidence of the "go away Americans, you're too risky" process:
If Europeans are stupid enough to turn away boatloads of money... well, it really wouldn't surprise me.

I somehow doubt the new centers of welcoming fleeing business will be the same socialist twitholes that chase it out in the first place. Dubai, for one, will gladly take golden geese that dippy Europeans and Americans toss out. I'm sure that other markets will emerge as well.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 09:00 PM
 
I'm not positive how incorporating in HK or Dubai is helpful - the IRS and state revenue dept. will still prove nexus by the fact that the owner lives in the US.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2008, 09:15 PM
 
Man, when George Bush won, at least the hippies could move to Canada to get away from him. Where will you guys move? It seems that most of the good choices are even more socialist then the United States.

Antartica? Where you can stack all of your money in an igloo, far away from the thieving socialists?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 03:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I'm not positive how incorporating in HK or Dubai is helpful - the IRS and state revenue dept. will still prove nexus by the fact that the owner lives in the US.
My understanding is the IRS can't touch a freakin' dime of an offshore holding in Dubai, no matter if the owner is American or not. it's completely private, there are no corporate or individual income taxes, and you don't even have to go to Dubai to set it all up.

A friend of mine who manufactures hardware in Asia has an offshore in Hong Kong for business that never touches US shores anyway. It was getting too ridiculous for him to pay US taxes on money that wasn't even made in the US in the first place.

Another big awakening the socialists are going to be finding out- money and business are global. So you're gonna soak 'the rich' in the form of small business? Even small businesses can say "Kiss my ass, I'm outta here."
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Oct 30, 2008 at 03:35 AM. )
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 05:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
My understanding is the IRS can't touch a freakin' dime of an offshore holding in Dubai, no matter if the owner is American or not.
Crash, go read the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse" bill, co-sponsored by Barry. Then go check on the UBS scandal. Then check the "Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Man, when George Bush won, at least the hippies could move to Canada to get away from him. Where will you guys move? It seems that most of the good choices are even more socialist then the United States.
There's hardly anywhere more socialist than the US. Even France doesn't tax as highly.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 07:16 AM
 
Oh, I don't know if that's true yet, Doofy. Don't the Scandinavian countries have tax rates upwards of 80%?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh, I don't know if that's true yet, Doofy. Don't the Scandinavian countries have tax rates upwards of 80%?
Hence "hardly anywhere" rather than "nowhere".

Highest I can find is Denmark, at 63% - which is only 0.56% higher than the top marginal if you're self-employed in NYC.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh, I don't know if that's true yet, Doofy. Don't the Scandinavian countries have tax rates upwards of 80%?
No, that's a myth.
Highest income tax I could find was ~60 %. However, this doesn't mean that people with a large income are actually paying 60 % of their total income.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Sayf-Allah
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh, I don't know if that's true yet, Doofy. Don't the Scandinavian countries have tax rates upwards of 80%?


I'm above the average income here in Iceland. I pay about 30% income tax.

"Learn to swim"
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2008, 04:57 PM
 
BO is not doing too good of a job spreading his wealth to his family. His Aunt that is mention in Dreams is living in a "real nice" part of Boston, and his brother George is living in a hut with no roof in a Kenyan shanty town.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Crash, go read the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse" bill, co-sponsored by Barry. Then go check on the UBS scandal. Then check the "Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008".
I have no doubt that Obama would LIKE to end offshore tax havens- I just don't believe he (or any other politician) will ever be able to do so.

As for UBS- Swiss banks have allowed themselves to be vulnerable to the possibility of having to disclose their account information. I don't know that much about all this, but from people I do know rich enough to actually be off shoring business and large sums of money, the idea of a "Swiss bank account" or offshore corporation is a complete joke. From what I gather, that hasn't been anyone's idea of a true tax haven since the 70's.

Dubai isn't a signatory to anything that a hack like Obama would try and exploit to force them to disclose private financial information. Also, if things were to get as bad as you and Big Mac believe it would- Obama somehow having the power to wreck wealth on a global level- new tax havens would spring up faster than you can say Caymans. Not everyone in the world is a dipshit that turns down the chance to be dazzlingly wealthy in exchange for sheltering rich people's money from tax and spend lunatics.

By the way, I myself am not even in favor of people hiding their income from taxation- it's just that the taxation should be reasonable, not excessive. (Which would certainly be the level required to bring about the financial doomsday you believe is inevitable).

Money that's kept in the economy and not hiding offshore somewhere is better for the economy and everyone. The thing is, naive socialists believe that if you keep squeezing business owners and wealthy people, they'll stupidly stick around and take it, rather than finding the ways available to keep it from being taxed out from under them. Unless Obama can completely outlaw FREEDOM, he simply can't stop people from finding ways to avoid excessive taxes- hence, it's not possible for him to destroy wealth- just send it elsewhere beyond his reach.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The thing is, naive socialists believe that if you keep squeezing business owners and wealthy people, they'll stupidly stick around and take it, rather than finding the ways available to keep it from being taxed out from under them. Unless Obama can completely outlaw FREEDOM, he simply can't stop people from finding ways to avoid excessive taxes- hence, it's not possible for him to destroy wealth- just send it elsewhere beyond his reach.
So, we shouldn't try to close tax loopholes because someone will eventually find a way around them? Is that the conclusion I should draw from that quote?

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
So, we shouldn't try to close tax loopholes because someone will eventually find a way around them? Is that the conclusion I should draw from that quote?
Draw whatever conclusion you want.

The thing is, you CAN'T close all tax loopholes without ending FREEDOM. People have the freedom to simply avoid your taxes. Taxes shouldn't ever be excessively high to the point where it's really worth anyone's while to do so. If there were really some global financial doomsday due to taxation that some believe in, then it would certainly involve tax rates well worth dodging.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 04:06 AM
 
And if the government finds out, is money worth one's freedom?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I have no doubt that Obama would LIKE to end offshore tax havens- I just don't believe he (or any other politician) will ever be able to do so.

As for UBS- Swiss banks have allowed themselves to be vulnerable to the possibility of having to disclose their account information. I don't know that much about all this, but from people I do know rich enough to actually be off shoring business and large sums of money, the idea of a "Swiss bank account" or offshore corporation is a complete joke. From what I gather, that hasn't been anyone's idea of a true tax haven since the 70's.
Well, not if you're American. It's still a tax haven if you fulfil certain conditions:

1) You're from the EU and you live in Switzerland.
or
2a) You don't live in the EU or Switzerland.
and
2b) You're not from the US.

Of course, there are better alternatives out there.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Also, if things were to get as bad as you and Big Mac believe it would- Obama somehow having the power to wreck wealth on a global level- new tax havens would spring up faster than you can say Caymans. Not everyone in the world is a dipshit that turns down the chance to be dazzlingly wealthy in exchange for sheltering rich people's money from tax and spend lunatics.
When I talk about Obama's pledge to "end tax havens", I'm not talking about global financial disaster. Just US financial disaster. The rest of the World will do fine once they figure out that they don't have to follow America's lead.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Dubai isn't a signatory to anything that a hack like Obama would try and exploit to force them to disclose private financial information.

Unless Obama can completely outlaw FREEDOM, he simply can't stop people from finding ways to avoid excessive taxes- hence, it's not possible for him to destroy wealth- just send it elsewhere beyond his reach.
Here's the problem (and something which is in Obama's power):
Those "special measures" in the Tax Haven Abuse bill include the power to stop all US based entities from doing business with the target tax haven. That includes VISA, Mastercard and Amex. So, if target tax haven refuses to open bank secrecy for the IRS, they'll soon find themselves unable to use credit cards.
Of course, a tax haven isn't going to stop being a tax haven simply because some American says so, so what'll happen is that they'll simply stop doing business with US clients.

The ramifications of this are reasonably simple: A lot of companies will pass the tax loss (that resulted by no longer having their head office in the Caymans) to their customers. Bang, inflation through the roof. A number of these companies may decide that the US is too expensive to do business in, and simply move all their operations offshore. Bang, millions of job losses in the US.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's some evidence of the "go away Americans, you're too risky" process:

http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/ban...s-account.html


http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/ban...k-account.html
Interesting to note that one of the countries whose citizens they *will* accept an account from is Iceland. A nation that earlier this month was on the verge of national bankruptcy. It therefore seems that the decision to exclude the USA is for political reasons.
     
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 11:49 AM
 
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zeeb View Post
Interesting to note that one of the countries whose citizens they *will* accept an account from is Iceland. A nation that earlier this month was on the verge of national bankruptcy. It therefore seems that the decision to exclude the USA is for political reasons.
Yes, it's political. It's because Switzerland doesn't want the IRS pressuring it to abandon banking secrecy. When I say "Americans are too risky" I don't mean that their money is too risky - I mean that where Americans go, the IRS tags along. Thus if you don't want to come entangled with the idiotic US government machine, you simply refuse to do business with Americans.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Can the McCain campaign latch onto any message that resonates with the American people?

Gallup poll on "spreading the wealth:"

58% favor a fairer distribution of wealth than exists now, while only 37% say the current distribution is equitable.
Not exactly a winning message, much.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Red State Socialism? What hack leftist site did you dig that graphic out from, Moderator? Part of being a union of States is that some will be stronger economically, and the weaker ones will benefit. Socialism, in contrast, is government confiscation and control over the property of some and the direct redistribution of said property to those who didn't earn it.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Not exactly a winning message, much.
When Americans were asked whether the government should focus on more equitable distribution of wealth or improving general economic conditions, 80+% of the respondents favored improving economic conditions. But we'll see, come election day, how many Crooks who think forced redistribution of wealth are part of the electorate. If there are more of you than there are of us, it will be a dark day for America.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 04:54 PM
 
Atlas shrugged today. Today BO said this about those who do not want higher taxes
"You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Red State Socialism? What hack leftist site did you dig that graphic out from, Moderator? Part of being a union of States is that some will be stronger economically, and the weaker ones will benefit.
Funny, I don't think Rhode Island is the strongest state economically.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
I've seen that argument before, and it doesn't resonate with me, know why? Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's perfectly reasonable for republicans to oppose big government (for example because of the ease or frequency of which it is exploited), and at the same time exploit that circumstance for their own gain, after the decision has been made. Like an altruistic hacker who reveals the seriousness of a potential exploit by exploiting it. At the very least, this argument boils down to republicans arguing against their own self-interest, which ought to be commendable.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 05:51 PM
 
Arguing against one's own actions is hypocrisy, not altruism.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 05:56 PM
 
Ok...lets try this. Note the hack leftist site I took this from.

"We share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs," (Palin) was quoted as saying in a recent New Yorker article. "It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company."

In a January address to Alaskans, Palin praised "our commonly owned natural resources" as a "state treasure."

And in a July column in the Anchorage Daily News, she was quoted as saying: "These payments represent a distribution of Alaska's resource wealth to the owners of the resource."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...lth-residents/
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2008, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Arguing against one's own actions is hypocrisy, not altruism.
Arguing against one's own actions is not the same as arguing against one's self-interest. Someone finding a wallet on the street and turning it in instead of keeping the money is acting against their own self-interest, but they're not a hypocrite. A rich person who argues that taxes on the rich should be raised is acting against their own self-interest, but they're not a hypocrite. A welfare recipient who argues against the welfare program is acting against their own self-interest, but they're not a hypocrite. They're not arguing that recipients should refuse, they're arguing that the service shouldn't be offered.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 08:20 AM
 
Well, I guess Crumb saw it all coming...

R. Crumb comics linked here. They are dated and were intended to incite discussion among people who, given their situation at the time, were better informed about the issues of the time than the typical person is today. They're also not at all safe for work, and of course we'd like anyone posting such stuff, even in the Political Lounge, to mark it as such.
--Glenn


http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa1b.gif
P2: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa2b.gif
P3: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa3b.gif
( Last edited by ghporter; Nov 1, 2008 at 03:01 PM. Reason: Not appropriate, even in the PL.)
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
Well, I guess Crumb saw it all coming...

R. Crumb comics linked here. They are dated and were intended to incite discussion among people who, given their situation at the time, were better informed about the issues of the time than the typical person is today. They're also not at all safe for work, and of course we'd like anyone posting such stuff, even in the Political Lounge, to mark it as such.
--Glenn


http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa1b.gif
P2: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa2b.gif
P3: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcnoa3b.gif
warning: a swastika shows in the URL bar for the host web site.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
warning: a swastika shows in the URL bar for the host web site.
As a favicon? I'm not seeing it. And for what it's worth, R. Crumb never drew anything without his tongue planted firmly in cheek. I doubt he'd endorse his sarcastic comic being coopted by neo Nazis.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 04:01 PM
 
Big Mac, your diatribe shows that you are so partisan, it is a wonder that anyone can take your words seriously.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
As a favicon? I'm not seeing it. And for what it's worth, R. Crumb never drew anything without his tongue planted firmly in cheek. I doubt he'd endorse his sarcastic comic being coopted by neo Nazis.
http://www.heretical.com will show it
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
warning: a swastika shows in the URL bar for the host web site.
Hmmm... To admit, I can't vouch for the host web site, I more or less stumbled upon these comics after some Crumb related discussion in another politics forum. They sure are not politically correct, but I thought they just might some pepper to the hysteria, err I mean thoughtful debate about Barry the black Hussein.

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2008, 09:15 PM
 
Nevermind that your attempt to stir up the pot has no relation to a thread on redistribution of wealth at all...

Pay no mind, you thought it would be interesting.


Next!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:01 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,