[CNBC] S&P contacts White House to notify about a downgrade coming

He probably believes it as much as you believe that subtracting a trillion from other non-fed parts of the money supply woud have no impact on the money supply.

 

The Fed is a private banking corporation not owned bu U.S. taxpayers. So when you say that "we" are printing money, i simply don't attribute that to we the taxpayerz. "We" are doing the borrowing while the Fed is doing the printing and collecting interest off our backs.

 

It went on Fed's balance sheet, again where did the Fed get the money to buy it?

 

From its balance sheet.

Where did the money for the seller to buy a trillion worth of UST's come from?

 

So a trillion dollar of government debt (again at inflated price, might just be worth 700 billion sitting on banks' book) has the same effect on the money supply as a trillion dollar of cash?

 

If you're asking me if a trillion = trillion, the answer is yes.

Anyway, let's say the fed holds onto the $1 trillion, 10 year bond for 10 years and receives interest, and a trillion dollar payment from the gov't in 2021, satisfying the terms. What happens to that $ 1 trillion - is it subtracted from the money supply?

 

http://timiacono.com/index.php/2011/04/14/the-leverage-of-the-feds-balance-sheet/

Not to worry though!

er...maybe somewhat to worry

 

Because he was precisely right.

As mentioned by deepblue (once again, precisely because he was right), top 400 Americans != top 1%. I know this may be a shock to you, but the top 1% of Americans, whether by TI, AGI, gross income, what have you, compose of a significantly higher number than 400.

But I do love that you call the IRS/CBO number as "whoodelashoop." If you propose a better source giving a better number, I'd love to hear about it.

And to put it mildly, that 23% (24% for me, I used data of the October 2010 vintage) does not even comprise of ALL taxes paid by the top 1%. Like I said, that number includes income tax, sales tax, payroll tax and corporate tax, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. It for example, does not include property tax, state and local taxes, inheritance tax (if you didn't die in 2010), etc etc etc.

This may also further shock you. The tax liability of ALL AMERICANS declined during the Bush cuts so I've actually know idea what your point was pointing out that taxes declined for the top 1%.

No wait, actually I do. It's because you can spin the usual "tax cuts for the rich" line without pointing that those tax cuts, which only affect income taxes, which is a revenue source PAID OVERWHELMINGLY BY THE RICH.

Yes I did make assumptions. Shocking isn't it? Believe it or not, each persons specific circumstances, tax-wise, is fundamentally different such that if one is to make an across the board comparison, one would necessarily have to make certain assumptions to give a basis for comparison.

If you really wanted to harp on it, I could have used married filing jointly status. It would have made a case even further detrimental to your arguments, because it would further reduce the effective tax rates of the poor (due to the additional deduction and exemption) relative to the rich, in which an additional exemption doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

Demographically, there is NO SIGNIFICANT STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in the number of household members (aka, married or not) between the family earning the median of $50,000 and somebody "rich" and earning $250,000.

The difference is in the age. The "rich" are likely older. They are also far more likely to have two income earners than say the bottom 10% (in which there are none), despite the comparable number of people in the household.

You yourself are entitled to that 15% LT capital gains/dividends rate. Given the debt problem faced by Americans (and I don't mean the giant governmental one), I'd think the last thing one needs is to further discourage savings. If you aren't taking advantage of this rate, why aren't you?

And as I've mentioned many times already, you have this great knack for confusing the issue by using the marginal rate, as supposed to the actual dollar amount paid.

Those 18% paid by the rich, aka the top 400 (your definition)? The amount is staggering.

I wouldn't call that the Obama agenda as Liberals have been spinning that line for generations long before he ever came along.

As I've mentioned in another thread, I am perfectly acceptable to raising tax revenue, whether through closing loop-hose, or raising the rates, preferably both. The reason is I don't believe the taxes are, historically, at an unreasonable level at the moment, especially comparing to the days of 90+% top federal brackets.

However, don't kid yourself. You are not asking for an across-the-board tax hike, aka, "shared sacrifice." You are asking to sacrifice the rich. Pretty much what you're doing is suggesting is tax the rich further for revenue and give continuity to using those revenue begotten by taxes the rich to fund programs which benefit the poor (since you are talking about income taxes here).

That being the case, I've absolutely no qualms about arguing "why the rich" instead of everybody, or the poor. Why not force the poor to "share the sacrifice" by paying a larger portion of programs that benefit them?

"They don't have enough money" isn't a good enough answer. Try again.

 

That's lovely. Several months ago I gave a quite a few graphs, tables and charts from for example, the CBO, Dept of the Treasury and the IRS. I purposefully avoided any partisan organizations.

My mistake, I forgot they don't have the Democrat Party seal of approval.

I just find it amazing your pathetic inability to read. As both deepblue and myself mentioned no less than twice each, the number both of us quoted included, here I'll put it in tabular format so even a numbskull like yourself could understand:

1. Federal Income Tax
2. Payroll Tax
3. Corporate Tax
4. Federal Sales Tax

Unlike your asinine claim, it WASN'T just "income taxes as the be-all, end-all of taxation."

And yes, I didn't talk about SALT, because that wasn't the topic of discussion, not the least of which because it isn't under the threat of being hiked across the board (tongue in cheek) at the moment.

But if you somehow think that the poor pay "more state and local tax," dollar amount wise, or as a share of state/local revenue, on a per capita basis, you're flat out of your mind.

 

Um, you would know how? We stopped tracking M3 supply in March 2007, right after the M3 supply increased from $6 trillion to $7 trillion since March 2006. After the financial crisis, I read several headlines from economists that estimated M3 supply "fell" to $10 trillion.

Fact: we've lost track of the money supply.

M2 supply definitely went way up though... WAY UP.

 

As a general counter to your point, as they all run to about the same thing---basically your assumption (23%) vs my assumption (18%-19%), and the dollar amount vs percentage amount---first of all, spewing the dollar amount is an incredibly naive argument since well, rich people own that much more than the poor in America. The top 400 own more than the bottom 60%, and the bottom 60% pays around, what, 4-5% of the tax burden? The top 400 pay about 1.8%, and that just keeps on declining.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time...hest-americans-and-their-terrible-tax-burden/

That is just a hilarious notion. Second, you obstructing something over comparisons was curious...since you neglect to compare to the metric I'm interested in---historical time series. You bring comparisons to other tax brackets...which is like huh? So not only is your data skewed, it's skewed for the wrong reasons. I never argued it was a regressive tax. Ever.

Correlation of capital gains tax to savings that benefit the economy---hilarious. More like asset bubbles like the ones that caused 2008. So much free capital heading to hot Asian economies or betting against their own nation etc. etc.

It's hilarious how this argument is always made---even for capital gains tax. *******. Trickle-down is a failure. Supply-side is voodoo economics. Get off the sunken boat.

Why not force the poor to share? Well in case you haven't noticed, the poor are the target of almost every Republican cut. You would hope the other side is gunning for another target.

The Republicans want to slash this and that. They're not aware that Keynesian-wise, slashing cutting and tax increases are two sides of the same ugly coin of stagnation. They want to score political points on this chaos and get things killed that they don't like---like Obamacare. Perish the thought that 3/5ths of all bankruptcies are due to staggering medical bills, or that an estimated 45,000 died because of being uninsured.

Oh the poor have sacrificed. They are always the first to sacrifice. International food aid was one of the first items cut, because, really, who gives a f**k about the poor of other nations? The same is now geared to the poor in America.

 

Actually, your arguments pretty much run the same too. The difference between you and me, I am logically consistent. You rant.

Once again, you've failed to sufficiently why you couldn't join the bracket of the rich, staring down the tax hikes instead of calling for them. Not that I'm suggesting that it's easy. It is not. It is very very difficult. Which is why all the more reason for the rich to enjoy it once they make it there.

And also, once again, you've failed go sufficiently explain that why, despite the fact that since 30 years ago, 40% of the richest are no longer there and 60% of the poorest is also no longer there, you felt it more productive to tax the living **** out of the rich instead of joining their ranks.

Sorry, it doesn't matter **** that the rich have more left after taxes, well duh, they are rich. It also doesn't matter **** that an income tax cut (of equal rates) will yield them more money, because duh, they paid the majority of the income taxes. Any equal rate cut could only benefit them more.

What I do find very interesting however, is how your kind never seem to mention the fact that the reverse is also true. Namely, that an "all fair" equal tax rate hike (benefiting the poor of course) would cut the rich far more deeply, dollar-wise, than the poor.

Funny how that part of the message always get left out.

So what was your point? Love the cherry-picked datum. If you rant the same time series for ANY OTHER SEGMENT, they all went down. You're not claiming that it was regressive, but your point was... what? That like everybody else in America, the tax rates paid by the rich went down? Well gee thanks. didn't know that.

LMAO. Love that argument too. Believe it or not, I'm not a supply-sider. That's actually merely another one of those punch-lines frequently used by your kind to confuse the issue.

I happen to feel that if you save money, invest wisely, you should be rewarded for it. Not the least of the reason is because you are far more likely to be a claimant to the various lovely social programs hosted by the state.

I've actually already mentioned that I support a public health insurance, but not because of your 45,000 died sob story. I support it because it makes good economic sense (that topic for another day). What I do find funny is how your arguments slant.

For example, I love how you leave out the timelines (vast one at that) in which the benefits for the poor increased at the detriments to the rich. Was it me or did I imagine (in a not quite so linear timeline order) better and safer work environments, unionization, labour contracts. minimum wage, shortened work week, paid vacations, tax raised for the rich, New Deal, New New Deal (I think a few could lay this claim), Medicare/Medicaid, etc etc etc.

I am not necessarily objectionable to quite a few of those, but I call a spade a spade. Your side love to leave out the benefits.

I'm going on the record. I don't give a ***** about those poor other nations. Not that I wish ill-will towards them, but IT ISN'T MY RESPONSIBILITY. Any country's government has only one set people to answer to: IT'S OWN CITIZENS. Because in the real world there is this thing called "opportunity cost," as well as "finite resources." Any improvements to the lives of others by my government necessarily mean a reduced benefit to me, due to finite resources and opportunity cost. It's that simple.

You want to do aid to those poor countries? Do it on your own dime. And I'll find you a small violin, how about that?

 

You mistake me for a Democrat. IIRC, I answered each of your claims point by point, complete with the very same numbers you posted and exactly how you misinterpreted them.

One of us suffers from a "pathetic inability to read," but it isn't me. I get that you won't consider taxes as a percentage of income because it doesn't fit your narrative, but that is something twisted in your head.

The middle class pays more tax as a percentage of income than people like Warren Buffett. As a result of the tax cuts, skewed in favor of the wealthy, over the last thirty years, we have massive deficits and debt, the highest wealth disparity since the Great Depression, and people like you have the audacity to ask for even MORE tax cuts.

Get back to me when you can understand what I have written, so far your reading comprehension needs a ton of work.

 

Well let's see shall we? You claimed that the poor paid more taxes than the rich, I've proven that a lie, never even mind that the poor (as you defined it) constitute a significant higher portion of people than the rich (as you defined it). You claim that SS is regressive, I replied that SS benefits was also regressive, even if you ignored the employer contribution. Heck, I even showed you the PIA calculation.

Let's start with those. There are more, but I don't particularly feel like looking them up at this point. If they haven't gotten through your thick skulls, they never will.

In each case they conveniently dropped off your radars. Shocking, I tell ya.

Actually, I just GAVE YOU THE *****ING TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, at least when it comes to federal taxes. Know the term? Effective tax rate. Deepblue just gave you the taxes as a percentage of income. The IRS gave you taxes as a percentage of income. The CBO gave you taxes as a percentage of income. It didn't get through to you but that had been THE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD FOR THE PAST 6 PAGES; but it didn't get through, like I said, your numbskull.

Once again, proven time and time again, by different people, from different OFFICIAL, NON-PARTISAN SOURCES, THAT IS BULLSH1T. Do your self a huge favour, before you make yourself appear any more idiotic than you already do, write the word "idiot" in dark black ink, across your forehead, then carry a mirror. And the time you feel the urge to post, look in the mirror.

 

tl;dr.

 

Your massive unclear sentence aside (typoed?), how difficult is it for the trust fund babies?

Attending an elite university as an undergrad<-maybe a hint why I'm not in the top tax bracket?->I can tell you life is easy once you've got it, by just witnessing what goes on with the children of the elite. Not to say I don't have my good times, but I'm not the kid plonking (unearned) money on cocaine or 1.75L bottles of Grey Goose.

30 years ago, I wasn't even born. But thanks for assuming I was older than I am...I guess?

They don't pay their fair share, as per the percentage of wealth they own. That's the problem. I'm not necessarily averse to tax increases on the poor or middle class either, but would be more inclined to pursue taxes on the top 1% just based on the issue of inequality.

Once again, you're arguing numbers vs percentages.

Well, except for the fact that incomes have rocketed up for the top 1%, and have actually started declining for the middle class. My point was the tax rates don't reflect that. Hell, I didn't even really think it was that big of a f**king deal until you and deepblue shat yourselves trying to justify an effective tax rate of 23% over 18%, instead of addressing say---capital gains tax, or corporate tax loopholes, which were other points I brought up too.

"Invest wisely"---oxymoron. You should not be rewarded for half of the things the market can let you get away with. Anyways, I feel like this is more philosophical than logical, so suffice it to say we should agree to disagree that the rich "deserve" their place. I say to become rich in this country, you have to either be a technological or marketing saint a la Jobs or a cynical, exploitative b*stard that deals with banks that launder drug money/inflate artificial asset bubbles/bet short on countries and delight in pushing them towards bankruptcy/generally screw people up the ass.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Argument was against the Republican/Tea Party position, which I'm aware you do not fully share, but is one that is a dominant train of thought lately.

The difference between me and you, is that I don't think it's enough. And it's going to get slashed rather than expanded upon.



American society was already hurt once by this in 2008, and it is rapidly again hurtling towards the levels of inequality that will create economic and social strain.

If we're going to talk "everyone needs to share the pain" bull****, well the buck stops here for poor people who will be disproportionately affected by entitlement cuts and other items the Rand Pauls of this world want to step in...the rich need to sacrifice too. Now, like I said before, I'm not averse to tax increases on the poor and middle class too, I just happen to think the level of inequality now, and the level of inequality that would be triggered through further budget cuts, would incline towards more taxes on the top 1%. However, the whole point is something has to give. And currently, with the Republicans, nothing will. They just want the poor to suffer.

Difference in philosophy I suppose. I have to say that these words, if you had told them to me personally, as a friend, I would have probably gotten real pissed. Seeing as how you're a stranger on this internet, I don't much give a s**t, but I'm going on the record, your position is morally repugnant to me.

And I put my money where my mouth is.

 

In 1980, the last pre-Reagan year, families in the bottom 90% averaged $30,446 in income, after adjusting for inflation, $72 more than the $30,374 comparable families earned in 2006. The top 0.01 percent in 1980 took home an average $5.4 million, less than one-fifth the $29.6 million average income of the super-rich in 2006.

That's worth repeating. Thanks, Northside Storm. Anyone else here, besides me, an adult in 1980? Not 20 years old, but older, old enough to remember the life that existed prior to the decade of the 1980's? It's no joke that for millions in the middle class, incomes have remained stagnant. In many cases, those in the middle class struggle to maintain the standard of living their parents had and are failing at it. That doesn't include me, but I know a lot of folks that are in that boat. The whole deification of Reagan for his tax policies, tax policies that today's Republican Party actually spits on, even if they attempt to hide that fact with a bunch of praise for Ronnie, has always struck me as absurd. It was a disaster for the middle class, rightfully called the backbone of this country.

Some of you need to take the blinders off.

 

Wealth redistribution has occurred. It has moved from the middle class to the rich. The Republicans are socialists of the rich and powerful.

 

What S&P got right. (long but worth a look)

I'm reasonably certain this statement could apply to democrats too.