"Unbreaking America" - proposed concept on fixing our political system!

highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Yet they do it all the time with labor laws and investment laws, in fact it took public pressure to get them to repeal their exemption from insider trading laws.
And we need to keep an eye on them but more important- we need to make them realize that their actions will have consequences. That's far easier said than done, though.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It is good to know we have a point of agreement.

I do think there's quite a bit not presently at the federal level that *should* be. You've just named several.

Not everything belongs there, of course. Some things belong at the state, some at the county, some at the city, some smaller than that; but our insistence on being a federation of states rather than a country has not been entirely to our benefit.

[If you think one congress is inefficient; how about 51 of them?]
Is it wrong that one state should have laws that are right for that state and not others? No, it's not- the Constitution allows it because the people in all states aren't the same, don't believe that they should have the same restrictions as all others and until their representatives go to the US Congress, the line should be able to exist. California shouldn't be the model for the whole country, nor should Texas. States have the right to do what they want, to a point- Federal Law and protections should be able to be used until those experience change, like Prohibition. Popular opinion IS NOT law, but it can become policy and law. Should we be able to legally run over people? NO, but it happens every day because some people won't stop crossing the street unsafely and others won't stop when they see pedestrians crossing streets. Do many people ruin their lives when they use drugs? Absolutely, but here we are, with people yammering about recreational use of pot when the original debate was about medical marijuana and legality of growing/using hemp. Obviously, some people can handle using some drugs on a regular basis, but I wouldn't say it hasn't affected them in unintended ways

OK, being a federation of states hasn't been entirely to our benefit- how well do you think it would work if we did away with state governments? How well has the EU worked for ALL countries? Not well and we're seeing countries that want to leave it.

Does anyone really want to be governed by the opposite political party? I don't think so. That's why the ability to move freely is a good thing- to get away from places where we don't want to live, whether town/village, city, county or state.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
For example?
Your statements like "moving my wealth" to the wealthy or the poor. This sounds like the classic nonsense about the rich "taking" wealth rather than creating it.

Regarding taxation, your misunderstanding of how AMT really works.


Yes. Seriously: https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/child-hunger-facts


$150 billion would do it... $1.5 trillion over 10 years. We just cut taxes on the wealthy $2.3 trillion. So obviously we could.
Also: it's not like we are spending $0 now; so you could subtract that from the $150 billion. On top of that: there are real fiscal costs to food insecurity. Those would go away as well.
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0058.htm
Okay, let's start with the $150B/year assertion. There are about 74 million children in the US, meaning under 18 years old. Assuming a cost of $200/month to feed each one, that's $14.8B per month, or $177B per year. But's that's for every child in the US, and even taking the most inclusive number about the food insecure population, that's 21% of children. So, 21% of $177B is $37B per year. So how do you get to $150B per year?

Your statement about cutting taxes on the wealthy by $2.3T isn't accurate. That's the overall cost of the program, lots of wealthy working peoples' taxes went up because of the SALT deductibility limit of $10K (like mine),and 80% of the population got a tax cut. Personally, I hate the tax bill as written by Congress, but when about 45% of the working population aren't paying federal income taxes at all, the only way to really change the distribution is expand something like the earned income credit.


OK. So you oppose providing healthcare to needy children because they are "unwilling to take responsibility"?
Jerry, this is beneath you. You know I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults.


I assume you also oppose other socialist activities in the US like public roads, public police departments, public schools, etc? Not to mention "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the VA.
These are not socialist programs, these are the natural functions of a government.

Speaking of a very skewed view. Do you have any support that there's some relationship between "wealthy" and "hard working"?

Even among the wealthy who didn't inheiret their wealth; there's certainly no relationship between hard work and income. An investment banker doesn't work harder than a migrant farmer; but they sure do make more money.
Investment bankers (which I'm not personally impressed by, but this is your example) add a lot more value than a migrant farm worker. The investment banker has more knowledge and does more complex tasks, the results of their labors have a greater return, and their skill sets are more rare. Comparing the two is a weak argument.

I know very few wealthy people (and I know a lot of wealthy people) who didn't work long hours, obtain rare skills, take significant risks, and make numerous sacrifices to get where they are. Many I know are business owners. Many are engineers and corporate executives. It is not more noble to be a migrant farm worker than a successful business owner or employee. And the successful people I know didn't get there because of "privilege", which seems to be an in-vogue notion going around lately.


Yea! To hell with those kids wanting food and medicine. That guy working three jobs who can't afford his kids medication? Why should I help him out. the soldier on food stamps? He should have thought of that before he joined the military. I could have gotten a new car! https://www.npr.org/2018/02/17/586759930/military-families-and-snap-benefits

And damn it! You earned it. It's not like your life was made possible by the hard work of those people. It's not like the road you would drive that car on was paid by the taxes of others.
Alright, now you've twisted my words around to the point of insult. The only two words I can think of right now for you *aren't* "Happy Easter".

And without the AMT, you get billionaires with lower tax rates than the poor half of the US.
You really don't understand how AMT works, and what a failure it was as tax policy.

So, to be clear, From 1940-1980 we were "exploiting the rich"?
No, the rich paid lower taxes back then. There were more deductions, and capital gains and royalties were taxed at lower rates than wage income, just like they are now.

You've done exactly that in this post. You've blamed the poor, you've blamed "the elites", you've blamed "the democrats", you've blamed "the socialists".

But you are both juxtiposing two issues (blame vs fix) and also being dishonest.
I have only "blamed" the Democratic Party candidates proposing socialism and wealth redistribution. I probably am one of "the elites", though I'm not sure what the definition of an elite is.

And because of your personal attacks and twisting of my statements, we're done.
 
Last edited:
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
Yet they do it all the time with labor laws and investment laws, in fact it took public pressure to get them to repeal their exemption from insider trading laws.
Unfortunately their phony exemption from insider trading laws is full of loopholes.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
1[-Investment bankers (which I'm not personally impressed by, but this is your example) add a lot more value than a migrant farm worker. The investment banker has more knowledge and does more complex tasks, the results of their labors have a greater return, and their skill sets are more rare. Comparing the two is a weak argument.-]

2 [-I know very few wealthy people (and I know a lot of wealthy people) who didn't work long hours, obtain rare skills, take significant risks, and make numerous sacrifices to get where they are. Many I know are business owners. Many are engineers and corporate executives. It is not more noble to be a migrant farm worker than a successful business owner or employee. And the successful people I know didn't get there because of "privilege", which seems to be an in-vogue notion going around lately.-]

3 [-No, the rich paid lower taxes back then. There were more deductions, and capital gains and royalties were taxed at lower rates than wage income, just like they are now.-]
Your points about investment bankers and wealthy people are excellent and from my experience, accurate.

I have some customers who are investment bankers- they don't pick the low end of the academic pool for people to do this- these people are insanely detail-oriented, work extremely long hours and travel a lot for business (which eliminates a lot of family time). Their responsibilities make mistakes intolerable because they're involved in sales & mergers of huge corporations as s well as smaller ones, but they're governed by the SEC and other legal entities that can be very restrictive. Yes, they make a lot of money, but they pay a buttload in taxes, too. I know several of their friends, too- fortunately for me, they trust me enough to recommend me and this is where most of my business is based.

I have a customer who is somehow connected to an old corporate family and is likely the most wealthy person I know. She could spend two million dollars every year, live a normal life span and have money left when she dies. I would like to make the amount she pays for her quarterly estimated tax. Her thinking is- "If I'm paying a lot in taxes, it must mean I'm making money". She doesn't need to work, but there she is- two degrees, is a member of the village board, works as an urban planning consultant and is back in school for her MBA in addition to being a member of the board of a few art museums, volunteers her time and donates a lot.

One thing that these people do frequently- update/remodel their homes, buy second homes and make large changes to those homes, even when the economy is in the crapper. That keeps people working, it requires materials and it helps to keep the economy going. All of the wealthy people I know and work for do a lot of volunteer work, donate to various causes, pay huge tax bills and contribute to society. For this, they're hated by people who are jealous over the "money that should be theirs", so they come up with ways to get it. Bernie Sanders is one of the 'I want mine!' crowd.

The wealthy people I know are Democrats and Republicans.

WRT taxes from 1940-1980, the time period from 1040-1947 can't really be used because 1947 is when the top tier began to pay up to 90% of their income due to the expense of WWII. From 1940-1947, the tax rates were more normal. The difference between the 90% rate and now- those making big money get to keep more of their money and the US now has more millionaires than the entire population of Sweden. It has never been more possible to become a millionaire than at any other time, which means there are far more wealthy paying the top rates.

Some people don't understand this. They prefer to just be jealous and angry about it.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Your points about investment bankers and wealthy people are excellent and from my experience, accurate.
[snip]
Some people don't understand this. They prefer to just be jealous and angry about it.
I think that most of them understands pretty well that something is not quite right, and I think you are wrong in believing that it is mostly jealousy at work. When they finally understand the 401(k) rip-offs they'll be even more angry, I guess, if they have one in the first place.

As for investment bankers and the financial industry they work in, well, I have pretty low opinion of that industry. I think a large part of that is parasitic and rent-seeking with little to negative social value, and attracts a certain kind of people.

By now I should mention a personal hero of mine: The late John C. Bogle, founder of The Vanguard Group, that has done more than most to give retail investors a real opportunity to capture the market return (bonds as well as stock). He was always concerned with the costs of investing [in mutual funds/brokers], giving quotes like "Performance comes and goes, but costs are forever". Here is one of his many articles on the subject: https://personal.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp2004AIMRefficientMrkts.html
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I think that most of them understands pretty well that something is not quite right, and I think you are wrong in believing that it is mostly jealousy at work. When they finally understand the 401(k) rip-offs they'll be even more angry, I guess, if they have one in the first place.

As for investment bankers and the financial industry they work in, well, I have pretty low opinion of that industry. I think a large part of that is parasitic and rent-seeking with little to negative social value, and attracts a certain kind of people.

By now I should mention a personal hero of mine: The late John C. Bogle, founder of The Vanguard Group, that has done more than most to give retail investors a real opportunity to capture the market return (bonds as well as stock). He was always concerned with the costs of investing [in mutual funds/brokers], giving quotes like "Performance comes and goes, but costs are forever". Here is one of his many articles on the subject: https://personal.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp2004AIMRefficientMrkts.html
My faith and any trust in the financial industry are subterranean after the debacle around 2007 (and I don't mean that as 'deep', in a good way), but the people I know who are in that industry don't strike me as being scum, like the guy who manages the office where my investments were parked. That guy can KMA. However, he's not an investment banker; he's a financial planner.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
My faith and any trust in the financial industry are subterranean after the debacle around 2007 (and I don't mean that as 'deep', in a good way),but the people I know who are in that industry don't strike me as being scum, like the guy who manages the office where my investments were parked. That guy can KMA. However, he's not an investment banker; he's a financial planner.
It never ceases to amaze me how many really smart, highly technical people I've worked with over the years who do the dumbest things imaginable with investments. I think a majority of people with significant assets I talk to use a CFP, at 1-2% of account value per year. $10,000 per million, minimum, and that's on top of the fees charged by the funds they recommend or the trading fees they charge. Even the fixed fee CFPs charge some number of thousands of dollars per year, minimum.

I have to give my kids the lecture about CFPs regularly, because their friends use them so they think they should.

Then there's the annuity foolishness...
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It never ceases to amaze me how many really smart, highly technical people I've worked with over the years who do the dumbest things imaginable with investments. I think a majority of people with significant assets I talk to use a CFP, at 1-2% of account value per year. $10,000 per million, minimum, and that's on top of the fees charged by the funds they recommend or the trading fees they charge. Even the fixed fee CFPs charge some number of thousands of dollars per year, minimum.

I have to give my kids the lecture about CFPs regularly, because their friends use them so they think they should.

Then there's the annuity foolishness...
I knew someone who seemed dumb as a hammer, but he had significant investments and he was talking about calling his broker after it seemed that the guy was churning the account, so his commissions could increase. That stopped and the broker may have lost his job.

I admit that I made some glaring mistakes but was guided by the head of the office and when I questioned him about it, he said "We don't advise". I told him to stop bullshytting me by choosing alternate definitions for what they do. Ultimately, the decisions were mine to make, so....
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
It never ceases to amaze me how many really smart, highly technical people I've worked with over the years who do the dumbest things imaginable with investments. I think a majority of people with significant assets I talk to use a CFP, at 1-2% of account value per year. $10,000 per million, minimum, and that's on top of the fees charged by the funds they recommend or the trading fees they charge. Even the fixed fee CFPs charge some number of thousands of dollars per year, minimum.

I have to give my kids the lecture about CFPs regularly, because their friends use them so they think they should.

Then there's the annuity foolishness...
Compound interest calculations are more difficult than it seems, but paying a CPF to help implement a realistic financial plan consisting of low cost index funds (along with other needed services, like insurance, health care, etc),at a reasonable cost, might be cheaper after all. The alternative is so very often playing to be the next Warren Buffet, misjudging their tolerance and ability for risk, and thus missing their financial (or otherwise) goals. Or worse, let their friendly broker handling the account.

As of really smart, highly technical people making bad investment calls: A former college of mine, graduated after 2008, was very afraid of investing in mutual funds, even the very broad low-cost index fund varieties. That is both stock and bonds, or any mix of them, but an older relative bought some stocks for him, but still no love. Then came Bitcoin and it's various ilk, and he was promptly infatuated with that. Heaven forbid that those things are EVER allowed in retirement accounts.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I knew someone who seemed dumb as a hammer, but he had significant investments and he was talking about calling his broker after it seemed that the guy was churning the account, so his commissions could increase. That stopped and the broker may have lost his job.

I admit that I made some glaring mistakes but was guided by the head of the office and when I questioned him about it, he said "We don't advise". I told him to stop bullshytting me by choosing alternate definitions for what they do. Ultimately, the decisions were mine to make, so....
A broker have no fiduciary responsibilities at all, so the manager's response was predictable. The poor guy's account was probably filled with illiquid weird securities, and severely lagging the market after costs, by whatever market benchmark (adjusted for risk) that was relevant.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
A broker have no fiduciary responsibilities at all, so the manager's response was predictable. The poor guy's account was probably filled with illiquid weird securities, and severely lagging the market after costs, by whatever market benchmark (adjusted for risk) that was relevant.
We have brokerages who are now saying they act as the account holder's fiduciary.

Maybe there's hope.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Well, may be a little off topic, but I just read on MSN this woman had her 3.000 tax return taken by the IRS cause owed on a student loan that she was behind on. She owes $80.000!. The article went on about how mad and upset she was she was trying to get it back from the government crying how bad she needed it. Thing about this is why should tax's payers have to foot her loan!! It's s$$t like this that's got this country trillions of dollars in debt!! The article went on saying that she got a child tax credit for 2400! Some people look a gift horse in the mouth uhu!!
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
Well, may be a little off topic, but I just read on MSN this woman had her 3.000 tax return taken by the IRS cause owed on a student loan that she was behind on. She owes $80.000!. The article went on about how mad and upset she was she was trying to get it back from the government crying how bad she needed it. Thing about this is why should tax's payers have to foot her loan!! It's s$$t like this that's got this country trillions of dollars in debt!! The article went on saying that she got a child tax credit for 2400! Some people look a gift horse in the mouth uhu!!
You neglected to include the part about her being homeless. I'm not a fan of footing somebody else's debt either, but it's not like she's layin' down fat stacks at the blackjack tables in Vegas. This is a fairly relevant quote from the article:

"Borrowers in financial distress can request that the Education Department review, and potentially return, their seized tax refund. However, refunds are harder to get back than Social Security or wage offsets, said Persis Yu, director of the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project at the National Consumer Law Center.
To do so, borrowers have to prove that they’re at risk of eviction or foreclosure. Since Patterson and her daughter have been homeless for months, she likely doesn’t qualify.
"

For anyone interested in reading the full article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/more-student-loan-borrowers-are-getting-their-tax-refunds-seized.html
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
You neglected to include the part about her being homeless. I'm not a fan of footing somebody else's debt either, but it's not like she's layin' down fat stacks at the blackjack tables in Vegas. This is a fairly relevant quote from the article:

"Borrowers in financial distress can request that the Education Department review, and potentially return, their seized tax refund. However, refunds are harder to get back than Social Security or wage offsets, said Persis Yu, director of the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project at the National Consumer Law Center.
To do so, borrowers have to prove that they’re at risk of eviction or foreclosure. Since Patterson and her daughter have been homeless for months, she likely doesn’t qualify.
"

For anyone interested in reading the full article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/more-student-loan-borrowers-are-getting-their-tax-refunds-seized.html
Yeah, I read that. I'm not a supporter of Warren's forgiveness plan at all, but some postponement period for reasonable cause, measured in years, for which there'd be no added interest, would probably pass muster even with cold-hearted, tough-love me. Once you've seen a glimpse of what the USG can do in tax or debt recovery situations, it's downright scary. I've seen what the IRS, the SEC, and the Treasury Department are capable of, and all I can say is: keep your nose clean.
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
I've got mixed feelings on that, it's enough of a challenge with my family's and my own financial obligations than to have to pay someone else's debt, but sometimes common sense has to prevail in situations like what's referenced from that article.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Where's the baby Daddy? Where's the child support? Why are the tax payers responsible? Did you lay up with this woman? Did I? Why should tax payers have to foot other people's higher education when they default on the loan? Where talking about a trillion dollars! So your grandchildren's children will have to pay their bill!
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
Where's the baby Daddy? Where's the child support? Why are the tax payers responsible? Did you lay up with this woman? Did I? Why should tax payers have to foot other people's higher education when they default on the loan? Where talking about a trillion dollars! So your grandchildren's children will have to pay their bill!
So... your contention is that she'll never pay any of the loan, regardless of whether she's homeless or not? I think you missed the part from my comment where I mentioned not being a fan of footing someone else's debt, she absolutely shouldn't be absolved of paying her loan. In this person's current circumstance, IMO, withholding the tax refund, including the tax credit, is soulless.
 
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
So... your contention is that she'll never pay any of the loan, regardless of whether she's homeless or not? I think you missed the part from my comment where I mentioned not being a fan of footing someone else's debt, she absolutely shouldn't be absolved of paying her loan. In this person's current circumstance, IMO, withholding the tax refund, including the tax credit, is soulless.
When she signed up for that loan she knew full well if she went into default she could lose her future tax refunds. But you or I didn't make the system, but I do see your point. Our Government gives out millions to other countries that absolutely hate us. So yeah does she deserve help? I would say she does, but our Government seems to pick and choose where the money goes and who to take it from.
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
Agreed and well said. I'm not of the mindset of allowing taxpayers to skirt their fiduciary responsibilities, but common sense has to prevail more often than not. This is where further reform is either warranted or at the very least, review of how the current rules and regulations are enforced/applied. Is easy to say all situations are cut and dried, but in reality, this where we, as humans, can apply logic from time to time. :)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top