Greek Bond 'Haircut' of 50% Appears Set: Sources

[RandomGuy]

I tend to go with the eventual bust theory because idiots like Fuzzy vote. Politicians are either running for election or running for re-election. Dealing with real issues is painful and no politician from either end of the political spectrum is going to campaign on or support higher taxes and cutting benefits.

+1

[RandomGuy]

And don't give me the "taxing the rich" fallacy. You could take it all and it wouldn't reverse the trend. The real tax money is in the middle class.

It isn't a fallacy. The wealthiest, and highest incomes have seen their real, inflation-adjusted, incomes rise by almost 20 percent over the last couple of decade or so.

The middle class has broken even, and by some real measures, has gotten worse off.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/...percent-201105

Just a sample quote, but I would be more than happy to flesh that out with solid data.

We really do need to raise taxes on the wealthy, and it is not an inconsiderable portion of income we are talking about.

My claim, though, and my burden of proof. I will call "bull " on myself and try to flesh that out this weekend.

[RandomGuy]

http://inequality.org/income-inequality/

Little bit easier to find than I thought. There is a start.

[RandomGuy]

And another...

Between 1979 and 2012, the top 5 percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 74.9 percent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 12.1 percent. This sharply contrasts with the 1947-79 period, when all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains. -

See more at: http://inequality.org/income-inequal....iCIIrL3i.dpuf

[RandomGuy]

Over the long term, if that richest segment has their incomes rise, while everyone else's stagnates, it will be the case that wealth will continue to be concentrated. Between the inheritance tax repeals and the capital gains tax rates, we are creating a new aristocracy. Talk about a sense of en lement....


http://www.economist.com/news/leader...e-increasingly

[SnakeBoy]

It isn't a fallacy. The wealthiest, and highest incomes have seen their real, inflation-adjusted, incomes rise by almost 20 percent over the last couple of decade or so.

The middle class has broken even, and by some real measures, has gotten worse off.

And why is that?

[boutons_deux]

Estate tax and the founding fathers

You can't take it with you

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

[RandomGuy]

And why is that?

Tax policies favoring capital, and punishing labor, fostered by the Republican party. Reference :'Job creators"



"death tax"

Et cetera. The wealthy have gamed the system, inside and out, to ensure that the source of most of their income, i.e. capital, is taxed less than the source of everybody else's income, i.e. labor.

[SnakeBoy]

Tax policies favoring capital, and punishing labor, fostered by the Republican party. Reference :'Job creators"



"death tax"

Et cetera. The wealthy have gamed the system, inside and out, to ensure that the source of most of their income, i.e. capital, is taxed less than the source of everybody else's income, i.e. labor.

C'mon RG, you know that's a ridiculous answer. Throw in a little profanity and it's something I would expect from boutons. I would think you could do better given your exceptional intellect.

[RandomGuy]

C'mon RG, you know that's a ridiculous answer. Throw in a little profanity and it's something I would expect from boutons. I would think you could do better given your exceptional intellect.

Already provided the graphs to back it up. You want me to add in a few of the tax policies that actively favor capital, such as the capital gains tax history?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=161

1994 stood at about 30%
2014 stood at 15%

Sorry you aren't pissed about the way you have been manipulated into thinking this is fair, or in your interest. You should be, because it is neither, and the people pushing for it, bloody well know it.

[RandomGuy]

The Estate Tax Explained: Who It Hits And Doesn't

A philosophical question arose on the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday: Should dead people have to pay taxes? Sounds funny, but the estate tax or, as Republicans call it, the "death tax," is one of the big debates between the two parties. And, as is usually the case, the truth is more complicated than either party makes it.

According to Ben Harris, a researcher with the Tax Policy Center whose job is to pore over IRS statistics and tax tables, "very, very, very few people" pay estate taxes.

"It hits about 2 out of every 1,000 estates, and these estates are the wealthiest of the wealthy," he says. "These are very high-income individuals who are affected by the estate tax."

The Tax Policy Center is a think tank that is a joint project of the Urban Ins ute and the Brookings Ins ution. It's been tracking the inheritance tax since President George W. Bush and his Republican Congress tried to kill it by putting the tax on a long slide into the ground. Over the past decade, the tax rate got progressively lower, while the amount of money a person had to be worth to pay it got higher. The idea was that by 2010 — poof! —there would be no more estate tax at all.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=121074648

This is another dishonest bunch of bull that the GOP signed on to, at the expense of everybody else, setting up a set of rich kids and their en lements.

All so that Kardashian's can have shoe closets that are larger than some single family households:

[CosmicCowboy]

Seems like a lot on unhealthy jealousy going on here. Personally I could give a how many shoes the kartrashians have.

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally I don't see what is wrong with working hard and saving a little to pass on to your kids. I certainly think they have a more righteous claim to the remainder of my lifetime savings than the government does. I only got those savings by paying all the taxes that were due already.

[RandomGuy]

Personally I don't see what is wrong with working hard and saving a little to pass on to your kids. I certainly think they have a more righteous claim to the remainder of my lifetime savings than the government does. I only got those savings by paying all the taxes that were due already.

According to Ben Harris, a researcher with the Tax Policy Center whose job is to pore over IRS statistics and tax tables, "very, very, very few people" pay estate taxes.

"It hits about 2 out of every 1,000 estates, and these estates are the wealthiest of the wealthy," he says. "These are very high-income individuals who are affected by the estate tax."

[RandomGuy]

Seems like a lot on unhealthy jealousy going on here. Personally I could give a how many shoes the kartrashians have.

(shrugs)

I don't really care if someone has more money than I do. I really, really don't.

What I do care about is that many of them leech off the rest of us, though favorable tax policies, therefore benefiting the most from the system, while providing nothing of value to the economy, other than a lucky last name.

You can't tell me that "hard work" is the only way that the super-rich are worth so much more than all the other human beings on the planet combined, sorry, not buying that.

[CosmicCowboy]

It was my impression that you were advocating more inheritance taxes. Is this true or false?

We know Boutons would want 100% since he so despises successful people. Where do you stand?

[CosmicCowboy]

At what dollar amount do you think the government should confiscate family wealth?

[SnakeBoy]

Already provided the graphs to back it up. You want me to add in a few of the tax policies that actively favor capital, such as the capital gains tax history?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=161

1994 stood at about 30%
2014 stood at 15%

Sorry you aren't pissed about the way you have been manipulated into thinking this is fair, or in your interest. You should be, because it is neither, and the people pushing for it, bloody well know it.

I'm benefiting from it, why aren't you?

[vy65]

1994 stood at about 30%
2014 stood at 15%

Incorrect.

[ElNono]

There's more factors than just taxes... you gotta have enough disposable income and understanding to go play in the market lottery... or if you have enough money or influence, your can make the market work for you.

It's all a giant casino that really stopped serving it's main purpose a long time ago (providing solid, long-term investments for companies). Now it's all about the quick buck, riding the wave, quick turnaround.

Companies are happy to play too, focusing in the short-term and stock price over the long-term.

If you have enough money to hedge your bets and the time and understanding to play the game, you can probably beat some suckers and get their money. Banks get fatter either way, taking their commission.

That's why all this recent 'economic growth' really isn't. It's the same money changing hands with very few, if any, actual investment and economic growth. Heck, actual GDP growth has been pretty tame.

[CosmicCowboy]

I dunno. Where I live (San Antonio) The economy looks pretty damn strong. I know oil prices ARE gonna hurt it, they just haven't visibly manifested yet.

[ElNono]

Texas is it's own little monster. 1 out of every 6 Texans earn below the poverty line right now (which is 6th worst rank in the nation), and it's been like that for decades.

I suppose if you were doing ok, you might be doing better. But it isn't an economy designed to lift people out of poverty when there's steady growth.

[ElNono]

BTW, going back to Greece... agreement reached, as expected...

[CosmicCowboy]

Texas is it's own little monster. 1 out of every 6 Texans earn below the poverty line right now (which is 6th worst rank in the nation), and it's been like that for decades.

I suppose if you were doing ok, you might be doing better. But it isn't an economy designed to lift people out of poverty when there's steady growth.

Pretty much 1 out of every 6 in Texas just hopped the river looking for a better life than where they were at. Sure tends to skew the statistics. The fact that the Texas economy can even absorb most of them is pretty impressive.

[ElNono]

Pretty much 1 out of every 6 in Texas just hopped the river looking for a better life than where they were at. Sure tends to skew the statistics. The fact that the Texas economy can even absorb most of them is pretty impressive.

It's actually twice as many, IIRC... I think the Hispanic population in Texas is close to 30%...

I didn't mean to criticize, just pointing out that Texas simply has an enviable position that's hard to replicate for a lot of states: massive oil resources, with the accompanying jobs, and cheap labor readily available. But when you look at the people earning at or below the minimum salary or below poverty levels, they've been always amongst the worst ranked states in those areas (most south states, except Florida, actually), and it's not just a new thing, you can track it all the way from the 80's and it's always been like that. Add no income tax (which is a big redistributor), poor investment in education, etc.

So it's by design. We can argue whether that's a good or bad thing, but ultimately, it's academic, and only really applies to Texas, due to the cir stances described above.