Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Obamadjustments
Topic Started: Dec 3 2011, 05:30 AM (565 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Wealth is a nebulous figure.

While we can say these people are worth X, in reality, as soon as assets start to be sold off, the value of the assets would decline. It becomes a buyer's market, if there are buyers to be had.

And no, I think we are upside down right now, in regards to debt/wealth ratios. I think the only thing holding us up, is because we are still the best game in town.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
You conflated 'wealth' with 'income', or rather JB did. The point has been oft made about the inability to close deficits by taxing the income of the wealthy alone. No such argument has been (nor could be) applied to wealth.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 08:10 AM
Still better than dying from lack of insurance.
Who dies because they're uninusured?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Dec 3 2011, 10:34 AM
You conflated 'wealth' with 'income', or rather JB did. The point has been oft made about the inability to close deficits by taxing the income of the wealthy alone. No such argument has been (nor could be) applied to wealth.
So the solution is to confiscate assets?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jesus Christ, George, where did I say that?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
You didn't, of course. But you (correctly) pointed out that taxing "the rich" (whoever they might be, this month) won't solve our debt problem. So, other than cutting spending or taxing *everyone*, what other solution is there?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
You could tax wealth, inflate the sh1t out of the dollar, default, selectively default, ... maybe more, that's just off the top of my head.


(i wish i didn't have to add 'but I'm not advocating these, i'm just answering your quesiton')
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
George K
Dec 3 2011, 10:44 AM
You didn't, of course. But you (correctly) pointed out that taxing "the rich" (whoever they might be, this month) won't solve our debt problem.
Again that's false. Taxing the wage income of the wealthy won't solve it.

(sorry this was nitpicky but in the context of the thread it seems the distinction needs to be made)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
How is "taxing wealth" substinatively different from confiscating assets?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
How is taxing income substantively different that confiscating income?


Maybe Mark has some insight on the question.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Dec 3 2011, 10:53 AM
How is taxing income substantively different that confiscating income?


Maybe Mark has some insight on the question.
It's not,

But neither is income defined as all assets.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Alright ...

This chart is from Jolly (Post #21):
Posted Image
Point #1: Take the latest figure from that chart and eye-balling it, let's say the "net worth" is about $54 Trillion (54,000 Billion in the chart).

Point #2: JBryan says in post #22 that the debt now stands at $15 Trillion.

Point #3: jon-nyc says in post #25 that the top 1% controls 40% of asset.

40% of $54 Trillion is $21.6 Trillion, a figure exceeding the debt figure ($15 Trillion) by a wide margin.

With that, even the most casual on observer can see that JBryan's statement in Post #9 ("You could take all they [the rich] have and not even make a dent in what we owe") is wrong.

Furthermore, it's wrong even when we confine "the rich" to the "top 1%." Expand "the rich" to cover the "top 5%" or "top 10%" would just make JBryan's statement in Post #9 even more wrong.

Those who said that many citation were given many times in support of JBryan's statement in Post #9 -- you knew not what you were talking about. You take a statement that seem to support your ideology, and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker without verification, without research, without critical analysis. For the sake of this democracy, you should expect yourself to do better.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Yes, his statement is wrong. However its possible he was thinking about income and poorly chose his words.


People get sloppy with this - like they do when they say 'half the people pay no taxes'. But its a sloppiness I tend to call people on, lest they start believing it.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Dec 3 2011, 10:40 AM
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 08:10 AM
Still better than dying from lack of insurance.
Who dies because they're uninusured?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 11:03 AM
Point #3: jon-nyc says in post #25 that the top 1% controls 40% of asset.
Actually the 40% figure is for financial assets only, the share of the 1% of all assts is lower, though still very large. But your overall point stands.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 11:08 AM
George K
Dec 3 2011, 10:40 AM
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 08:10 AM
Still better than dying from lack of insurance.
Who dies because they're uninusured?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/
That's absolute BS.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 11:03 AM
Alright ...

This chart is from Jolly (Post #21):
Posted Image
Point #1: Take the latest figure from that chart and eye-balling it, let's say the "net worth" is about $54 Trillion (54,000 Billion in the chart).

Point #2: JBryan says in post #22 that the debt now stands at $15 Trillion.

Point #3: jon-nyc says in post #25 that the top 1% controls 40% of asset.

40% of $54 Trillion is $21.6 Trillion, a figure exceeding the debt figure ($15 Trillion) by a wide margin.

With that, even the most casual on observer can see that JBryan's statement in Post #9 ("You could take all they [the rich] have and not even make a dent in what we owe") is wrong.

Furthermore, it's wrong even when we confine "the rich" to the "top 1%." Expand "the rich" to cover the "top 5%" or "top 10%" would just make JBryan's statement in Post #9 even more wrong.

Those who said that many citation were given many times in support of JBryan's statement in Post #9 -- you knew not what you were talking about. You take a statement that seem to support your ideology, and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker without verification, without research, without critical analysis. For the sake of this democracy, you should expect yourself to do better.
Not so fast.

Ever figure your net worth?

Now, ever take that figure and compare it to what you are actually worth?

Now, take that figure and mark it down to fire sale prices, because you will not realize your full potential in a confiscatory environment.

JB may, or may not be wrong...

Lastly, healthcare is an ongoing need. Confiscating wealth is a one-time shot.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
Dec 3 2011, 05:30 AM

Gotta love Obamacare...
Curious what specific feature of the bill would cause providers to shed staff and resources.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Ax started this debate with this statement:

Quote:
 
Time to raise taxes on the rich to care for the poor, don't you think?


I responded with this:

Quote:
 
You could take all they have and not even make a dent in what we owe.


My response may have been imprecise or it may have been overly generous to the nitpicky but it was clearly stated in the context of taxation. I should have phrased it as taxing them at 100% although, as Jolly pointed out, liquidating assets doesn't usually get you any where near their total worth and putting a "dent" into a 15 trillion dollar debt would be quite a heavy lift even for the most wealthy. The point is that talking about further taxes on rich people to pay for yet another entitlement is silly in light of the massive debt and deficits we are already running. There seem to be those who believe the "wealthy" are some bottomless well from which you can draw continuously for whatever government program or deficit reduction plan de jour might be.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Or more colloquially you could have said 'all they make' instead of 'all they have'. I don't consider it nitpicky, since the words have decidedly different meanings.

At any rate, I'll accept that you were thinking income and just chose the wrong words.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
George K
Dec 3 2011, 10:40 AM
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 08:10 AM
Still better than dying from lack of insurance.
Who dies because they're uninusured?
In many cases the inability to get insurance is more of a symptom than a cause.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Jolly,
This just came out in today's paper. It seems in Colorado positions are being added in health care and other fields. What do you think is different between here and LA?

"Ambulatory or outpatient health services will add 3,000 jobs, and hospitals are expected to add 2,000 more positions.
Registered nurses in particular will continue to be in high demand, Wobbekind said.
Computer system design service firms are expected to hire big, adding 2,500 jobs next year. Architectural and engineering firms are expected to add 1,200 positions."

Colorado is expected to create more jobs in 2012
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
jon-nyc
Dec 3 2011, 11:52 AM
Jolly
Dec 3 2011, 05:30 AM

Gotta love Obamacare...
Curious what specific feature of the bill would cause providers to shed staff and resources.
*bump*
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Ok, not interested in starting a war or anything, but I also came across this article

Louisiana job growth: Nursing is Number 1

Same question more or less: Why do you think the job situation is different in your part of the state?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Axtremus
Dec 3 2011, 06:18 AM
Time to raise taxes on the rich imaginary to care for the poor, don't you think? :angel:

Nice dream.

Everyone loves the dream.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2