Printable View
If things don't get better that this doom I see from the demonrats, I'm looking to move myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Will you please start another thread, and tell us what you know about Belize. Maybe in "The Club" please.
Fuck this country if they want more and more of my tax dollars. I'll move the fuck out.
Liberals like Paulson and Bush Jr?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
How much did this country take from you last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
RINOS are not conservatives. They have many liberal traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
At least $20k I'd have to look it up, not worth the effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Well I guess I should have asked the question better. How much did you make and how much did they take?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I prefer not to say much there. I make a pretty reasonable amount of money compared to most. My last job, I used to make 6 digits. I'm close, but only 5 digits now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Fucking democrats and their economy.
I have no write-offs. Just my single status exemption/standard deduction, medical, and retirement as pre-tax deductions. I'm including state taxes too.
Unlike liberals, you have no problem making excuses for them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The U.S. has one of the lowest rates of taxes in the world....GTFO.....
I agree with you, entirely different crashes. THe 1920 crash was a bigger loss in monetary base. And for that whole year of that depression, the rate was at 7 percent. The reaction of the Fed was to spike the rate and contract the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The crash of 1920 was caused not by hiked rates like you alleged, but by the opposite.. money expansion aka dollar inflation. The fed combated it by contracting it with rates spikes and the depression was over in a year.
The opposite occured in the depression, we lowered the interest rates to 1 percent.
This doesn't help your argument at all.
The deflation was necessary to combat the money inflation that actually CAUSED the crash. Moot point. The boom of the 20's that led to the correction of 29 was the actually caused by the fed lowering the interest rates after the fact that they hiked them.Quote:
You couldn't possibly say that there was no intervention from the Fed. As soon as the Fed went back down from 7% to 4.5% interest rates, the deflation was over.
The worst results of the depression weren't felt right away. The worse of the bank runs came 2 yrs later and the monetary base loss was less than the 1920's depression.Quote:
The Great Depression was a completely different animal. The consumers lost complete trust in the system after the bank runs. Regaining trust after so many people lost so much money takes a long, long time.
Historians agree that the 1920's crash was deeper and more dangerous. But the opposite was done in that one in that we contracted the money supply and we hiked interest rates in 1920.
According to Keynesians, contracting the money supply during a depression would be disasterous, but the 1920's crash and recovery completely scoffs them and is a thorn to their side.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...of-1920-1921/#Quote:
At the conclusion of World War I, U.S. officials found themselves in a bleak position. The federal debt had exploded because of wartime expenditures, and annual consumer price inflation rates had jumped well above 20 percent by the end of the war.
To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what today strikes us as incredibly “merciless” policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion—a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.
On the monetary side, the New York Fed raised its discount rate to a record high 7 percent by June 1920. Now the reader might think that this nominal rate was actually “looser” than the 1.5 percent discount rate charged in 1931 because of the changes in inflation rates. But on the contrary, the price deflation of the 1920–1921 depression was more severe. From its peak in June 1920 the Consumer Price Index fell 15.8 percent over the next 12 months. In contrast, year-over-year price deflation never even reached 11 percent at any point during the Great Depression. Whether we look at nominal interest rates or “real” (inflation-adjusted) interest rates, the Fed was very “tight” during the 1920–1921 depression and very “loose” during the onset of the Great Depression.
Now some modern economists will point out that our story leaves out an important element. Even though the Fed slashed its discount rate to record lows during the onset of the Great Depression, the total stock of money held by the public collapsed by roughly a third from 1929 to 1933. This is why Milton Friedman blamed the Fed for not doing enough to avert the Great Depression. By flooding the banking system with newly created reserves (part of the “monetary base”), the Fed could have offset the massive cash withdrawals of the panicked public and kept the overall money stock constant.
But even this nuanced argument fails to demonstrate why the 1929–1933 downturn should have been more severe than the 1920–1921 depression. The collapse in the monetary base (directly controlled by the Fed) during 1920–1921 was the largest in U.S. history, and it dwarfed the fall during the early Hoover years. So we hit the same problem: The standard monetarist explanation for the Great Depression applies all the more so to the 1920–1921 depression.
The Results
If the Keynesians are right about the Great Depression, then the depression of 1920–1921 should have been far worse. The same holds for the monetarists; things should have been awful in the 1920s if their theory of the 1930s is correct.
To be sure, the 1920–1921 depression was painful. The unemployment rate peaked at 11.7 percent in 1921. But it had dropped to 6.7 percent by the following year, and was down to 2.4 percent by 1923. After the depression the United States proceeded to enjoy the “Roaring Twenties,” arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Some of this prosperity was illusory—itself the result of subsequent Fed inflation—but nonetheless the 1920–1921 depression “purged the rottenness out of the system” and provided a solid framework for sustainable growth.
As we know, things turned out decidedly differently in the 1930s. Despite the easy fiscal and monetary policies of the Hoover administration and the Federal Reserve—which today’s experts say are necessary to avoid the “mistakes of the Great Depression”—the unemployment rate kept going higher and higher, averaging an astounding 25 percent in 1933. And of course, after the “great contraction” the U.S. proceeded to stagnate in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which was easily the least prosperous decade in the country’s history.
The conclusion seems obvious to anyone whose mind is not firmly locked into the Keynesian or monetarist framework: The free market works. Even in the face of massive shocks requiring large structural adjustments, the best thing the government can do is cut its own budget and return more resources to the private sector. For its part, the Federal Reserve doesn’t help matters by flooding the shell-shocked credit markets with green pieces of paper. Prices can adjust to clear labor and other markets soon enough, in light of the new fundamentals, if only the politicians and central bankers would get out of the way.
Nice..Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
I don't believe that. However, lets assume it's true. We still have something like the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is the primary reason why new jobs are everywhere but here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Fair enough, although I seem to recall you stating your income in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So what I can gather from what you've said your somewhere in the top 15-20% of wage earners, your total tax burden (including state taxes) is roughly 20% which is way too much and you leaving the country if they try to take anymore.
Last I looked, I was in the fourth quintile. I did list two of my past years in excess of $100k at one point, but never gave current circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Bulll..Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ountry.svg.png
Like I said, we have the 2nd highest corporate rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
yeah, like I said, bull
The Basics
Most companies paid no taxes during the boom
MSNQuote:
With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.
By MSN Money staff and news services
Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.
In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.
And it wasnt just American companies avoiding a bill. About 70% of foreign-owned companies doing business in the United States paid no federal tax in the late 1990s, the GAO said. The GAO report covered 2.1 million returns by U.S. companies and 69,000 foreign-owned companies.
The federal corporate tax rate is 35%, but tax credits and loopholes can dramatically shrink the tax bill. Companies may not report U.S. income tax because of current-year operating losses, losses carried forward from preceding tax years, tax credits and improper pricing of intercompany transactions.
Don't you get it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
They find ways to move money into other nations taxes that are less. Diversification of corporate assets elsewhere. Less of their corporations are here, along with less labor being paid those nice wages.
Stop and smell the truth for a moment.
You paid around 20K total tax burden on "close" too 100k... Which is roughly 20%. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
How low percentage wise would your tax burden have to be in order for you to think it was just about right? And how low would it have to be in order for you to think you were not paying enough?
No they don't...they hide foreign profits in Cayman Island bank accounts and every few years a GOP President will come along and give them amnesty from hiding profits....domestic companies have so many deductions and scrupulous business practices that there is no need to move money to foreign countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
...stop and smell the real truth for once...
My point is that at such high tax rates, the money is not productive here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Why? Does it just disappear? All money is productive as long as it doesn't just vanish...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There was more than that. You can't discount the raise in civilian labor force after the first WW. It was the second largest increase in workforce behind the end of WWII in the history of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
And the Fed strategy backfired terribly. By raising the rates so much (we wouldn't see a 7% interest rate for another 50 years after that), they completely obliterated lending among banks and to consumers.
The depression ended when the Fed lowered the rates back down to 4.5%...
Here's timeline for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
- In December 1919 the rate was raised to 4.75%.
- In January 1920 it was raised to 6%.
- Depression started.
- In June 1920 it was raised to 7%.
- In 1921, during the July-November period, the Fed sharply reduced the rate by half a point until reaching 4.5%.
- Depression ended.
Starting in 1922, the recovery was already visible, with unemployment going under 7% by then, lowering to under 5% by 1923.
The deflation was not necessary because since the Fed was created in 1913, they didn't back up the entire money supply with gold anymore. We were effectively under fiat money (some will say the beginning of the end), and the cycles of inflation/depression that were characteristic of the gold standard didn't apply anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
They were completely different crashes. One had to do with a flood of new workers and the adjustments the economy had to do post World War I, compounded by bad monetary policy that rewarded speculation instead of investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
The other was a lot closer to what we see today: Over-indebtedness coupled with deflation, which triggers debt liquidation, which in turn contracts the money supply as bank loans are paid off, at that point pessimism sets in followed by hoarding of money.
Since the margin requirements of 1929 were only 10%, as soon as debt started to be liquidated brokers called in these loans, and they simply could not be paid back. That's where the bank runs started.
While the loss of monetary base was bigger in 1920, the actual loss of assets by the general population was much, much bigger in the Great Depression.
But it's productive in the Cayman Islands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra