Skip to main content

28 replies

Federal Reserve to publicly buy U.S. Debt.

J JugflierHall of Famer
I told you a few months ago that the Fed was secretly manipulating the bond market to cover the U.S debt and prevent a market meltdown.
Now the Fed has come out and stated publicly it plans to do more of the same.
I covered this in the thread "Check kiting on a massive scale."
We are about to see a hyperinflationary depression.

http://www.infowars.com/fed-le...e-brink-of-collapse/
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

W wowHall of Famer
I hate to admit my ignorance, but over the years I read and still don't understand.The Federal Reserve is not owned, nor is it private profit making, but it is within the government. They do make profit and the government gets ,it, but the government doesn't own it. So where does the initial money come from to make the profit? If I understand correctly, local banks keep their money "in" the Federal Reserve, so is there actual "gold value" there? If it is part of the government, why don't "the people" have a say about it's management...UUHHHH! The more I try to understand it, the more I feel like I am reading political rhetoric. Help me from being forever doomed to ignorance!!!
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
The Federal Reserve is not owned, nor is it private profit making, but it is within the government. They do make profit and the government gets ,it, but the government doesn't own it. So where does the initial money come from to make the profit?


There's too much history to cover here. The public/private hybrid was a compromise. The Federal Reserve was not the idea of politicians. It was the idea of bankers, but they needed political support. A central bank is necessary in an economy that allows fractional reserve banking (only keeping some of the money in the bank and loaning out the rest). After the bank runs that preceeded the Depression, bankers wanted a private bank that had government support to have their back should problems arise. Some politicians supported this, others wanted the central bank to fully be a part of the government. What we have is the compromise - a gigantic mess. You ask about the initial money. Originally, it was the gold reserve of the US. Nixon stopped that in '71. Now, paper currency is only as valuable as other countries deem the credit worthiness of the US.
MentalFlossMentalFlossHall of Famer
I'll paste a past rant of mine on here.
quote:
I havent given an "evil Fed inflation rant" , (maybe this should be it's own topic?)in a while so what the heck

Few realize our central banks (private companies) print money (or credit) out of thin air and loan it to the government and others and then collect interest on it. Poof ... what a deal.

Meanwhile as the newly created money enters the economic system, the value of the existing money is dilluted. This often is reflected in higher prices, but not always and not equally. (see what jagorham said about oil prices)

The cheap money and credit policies encourage malinvestment. Because there is not real value backing the new money and credit (ie it is created at a faster rate than the "real economy" is growing) the ballance of new money has to equalize somehow. It is a combination of depreciating value of the dollar and liquidation of the "assets" which were malinvested in.

The Fed has created soooo much money and credit over the past few years, there has to be a correction and we allready beginning to see it.

M3, the broadest measure of the money supply was discontinued last year. At that time it was running about 8% per year. Some folks managed to reconstruct the M3 metric using the component data and publish it monthly. It is now running in the 13% range.( i think there is a llink to this on the above website I linked to I am at work and dont have all my bookmarks here)

The same inflationary policies that brought on the dot com boom and subsequent bust, brought on the housing bubble (or bulge as i like to call it) and it's unfolding bust.

On a more global scale ( i work in the manufacturing field so we see global changes an average of 1 to 2 years before others), what really appears to have shaped up is essentially a dollar bubble. IE. the world is awash in dollars and realizing they are not worth what they had hoped they would be.

This happened in 1971 when the policies of the 1960's caught up with the dollar. FOreign banks turned in their dollars for gold. Nixon finally took us off the Bretton Woods "quasi gold" standard and refused to honor the dollar convertability and the inflation leading to "stagflation" continued.

WE know what the 1970's were like. In 1980 Fed Chairman Volker let interest rates go over 20% to save the dollar and it worked. Inflation subsided The prosperity of the 1980's and 1990's was a result of renewed confidence in the dollar and Reagans lower taxes.

According to Alan Greenspan we were still reaping the bennefits of that as recently as a couple of years ago.

Central bank inflation is at the root of the boom bust economy.

I am sort of thinking this is when the North American Union stuff will really come to light. ANd the "Amero" that we are told is fictional will be proposed. All sorts of excuses will be made for the tanking dollar. Of course the fact that the central banks (private corporations by the way) and the government killed the dollar will be convieniently ignored.

Honest money benefits the people, inflationary currencies and the boom/bust cycles they create bennefit certain banks and special interests. It really is that simple.



What you fail to understand is that Theft by government and banks (ie. inflation) directly undermines property rights. Inflation is an attack on freedom.

Greenspan said it best (before he became a central banker of course)

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

"Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion."

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

Ron Paul had an incredibly simple suggestion. Change the legal tender laws to allow gold and silver to be coined and voluntarily exchanged as money bay anyone who chose to honor it. Those who choose to, would maintain a conversion between the hard money and the dollar (not a big deal as many countries allow multiple currencies). Although the central banks do buy and sell gold and silver to manipulate the price, hard money tends to be an anchor. Freely circulating hard money would provide competition to the dollar and would tend to discourage the Fed from rampant inflation.

Like I said before "laws of probability" will catch up.I totally agree about the "same handbasket". We are on the same type "barter" system,but we are not trading anything but IOU's. Sorry to get of topic here and the typos but I rant about the deficit about once a year so I'm done for a while. Have a great weekend Wink


If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?

J JugflierHall of Famer
When you run a 40 billion dollar trade deficit month after month, this equates to 480 billion dollars a year that leaves the country to never come back. In a 10 year period, this about is almost 5 trillion dollars. The average U>S. economy is about 12 to 14 trillion dollar a year economy. So, in 23 years you would effectively export your entire economy.

The reason we still have some form of prosperity is that the money leaving the country every year is being replaced by loans, money created out of thin air, loaned out by the central bank, loaned to businesses and consumers. As the Fed loans this money, they are replacing the lost capital (dollars), that has left the country due to trade deficits.
This action devalues all the money held in circulation as well as the dollars paid to overseas interests.
If we had no central bank like the federal reserve, Congress would not be able to spend more than it takes in without selling bonds that have real value. We would not be able to run trade deficits, congress would have to impose tarriffs, limit foreign investment, and most of all, TAX THE RICH.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
We would not be able to run trade deficits, congress would have to impose tarriffs, limit foreign investment, and most of all, TAX THE RICH.


Please explain something Jugflier. If trade surplus is vital to economic prosperity, who is supposed to run the trade deficits? If every nation adopted a no trade deficit policy, who would trade surplus nations trade with?
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
Juggie,

"We would not be able to run trade deficits, congress would have to impose tarriffs, limit foreign investment, and most of all, TAX THE RICH.'

Many of your suggestions are in effect and ruining the place.

We already have tariffs. Hoover imposed high tariffs and most of the nations passed similar tariffs -- shutting down world trade. As the world's third largest exporting nation, we would shoot ourselves in the foot. I would support tariffs on goods specifically price below what they sell for in the country of origin. That smells of a plan to run US competitors out of business. A scheme supported by that nation's government.

The US has attracted foreign investment since its origin. Shutting out foreign investment would further limit the funds business need to expand.

As for taxing the rich, In 1980, with Jimmy Carter still as president, the top 1 percent of filers, with an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes.

That was actually less than the total tax share of people collectively in the 11th to 25th percentiles, middle income taxpayers making between $24,000 and $35,000 (in 1980 dollars).

A decade later, despite Reagan's tax cuts,the top 1 percent of filers were paying over 25 percent of the country’s tax bill.

The portion of taxes paid by the top filers grew throughout the 1990s and into the new century. t. By 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.

http://www.realclearmarkets.co...and_their_taxes.html

In the UK, persons with dual US/UK citizenship are in lines at our embassy to pay their final tax bill and renounce their US citizenship. The US is the only country, besides the Philippines, that taxes a citizens income outside the home country. Those who renounce their citizenship will emigrate to Monaco, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Caymans, or similar with their wealth.

Or, if rich enough, they may just stop working and live off their wealth. Humans are rational animals. Tax their labor too much and they lessen their efforts.

I would support excise taxes on luxury items, such as high end cars at point of sale. You have to be careful with that. Congress put a high tax on new yacht purchases. The result was yacht makers in Biloxi, Mobile, the US Virgin Island and Puerto Rico went bankrupt. The rich simply purchased their new toys from Taiwan and Bermuda.
J JugflierHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
We would not be able to run trade deficits, congress would have to impose tarriffs, limit foreign investment, and most of all, TAX THE RICH.


Please explain something Jugflier. If trade surplus is vital to economic prosperity, who is supposed to run the trade deficits? If every nation adopted a no trade deficit policy, who would trade surplus nations trade with?


Dole,
While you and i are not that far off economically, there are a few stark differences.
As to your question, Five people play poker. Two people win more than they lose night after night. At the same time, three always lose more than they win. How long before the three are bankrupt? This is a high stakes game of poker, problem is, the leaders of our country don't understand how to use their leverage. Sometimes you call a bluff.
Our economy is the largest single market in the world. Companies from all over the world are clamoring to get a piece of it, including the Chinese. The decision was made that more money could be made by the rich by being on the edge of emerging markets, rather than in established markets like we have. So our market was sacrifieced for the purpose of growing other markets that the Wall Street elite could then be in the forefront and reap the immense profits such an economy proivides.
It is in THEIR interest to build up emerging markets at the sacrifice of our own. Our low tax rates (on the top rates) encourage this kind of behavior, andallows them to keep their ill gotten gains.
The only place in our economy in the last 14 years that has promised the kind of obscene profits that can be made overseas, was in the equities markets. No wonder every major and minor corporation with cash was invested in those markets.
J JugflierHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Juggie,

"We would not be able to run trade deficits, congress would have to impose tarriffs, limit foreign investment, and most of all, TAX THE RICH.'

Many of your suggestions are in effect and ruining the place.

Ventor,
Your version of doublespeak is lost on me, I have been innoculated to your CIA techniques. If you were to come out of your basement office away from your memeory hole, you would find that it is 2010, not 1984.
The rich pay less now in taxes as a percentage of their income since the depression, and with corporatism, they pay even less. We have been practicing a free trade, no tariff policy for 15 years, and trade deficits are at record levels.

quote:


As for taxing the rich, In 1980, with Jimmy Carter still as president, the top 1 percent of filers, with an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes.

That was actually less than the total tax share of people collectively in the 11th to 25th percentiles, middle income taxpayers making between $24,000 and $35,000 (in 1980 dollars).

A decade later, despite Reagan's tax cuts,the top 1 percent of filers were paying over 25 percent of the country’s tax bill.

The portion of taxes paid by the top filers grew throughout the 1990s and into the new century. t. By 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.

http://www.realclearmarkets.co...and_their_taxes.html


93 percent of the wealth in America is controlled by only 10 percent of the people. Those 10% pay only 40% of the taxes. That leaves 90% of the people recieving 7% of the income paying 60% of the taxes.

quote:
In the UK, persons with dual US/UK citizenship are in lines at our embassy to pay their final tax bill and renounce their US citizenship. The US is the only country, besides the Philippines, that taxes a citizens income outside the home country. Those who renounce their citizenship will emigrate to Monaco, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Caymans, or similar with their wealth.

You make my point for me. These people have no loyalty to any flag, all they care about is making themselves filthy rich, then getting out and living like a king in some third world country. All the while impoverishing this country, and we use the tax code to encourage it. If we followed sound economic policies, the children and grandchildren of those people who renounce their citizenship will have to come back to us for bread.

quote:
Or, if rich enough, they may just stop working and live off their wealth. Humans are rational animals. Tax their labor too much and they lessen their efforts.

I would support excise taxes on luxury items, such as high end cars at point of sale. You have to be careful with that. Congress put a high tax on new yacht purchases. The result was yacht makers in Biloxi, Mobile, the US Virgin Island and Puerto Rico went bankrupt. The rich simply purchased their new toys from Taiwan and Bermuda.


Lets just cap CEO compensation at 5 million dollars and tax at 100% everything over that. That was the economic policy of this country for 40 yeaRS, during which time this country experienced it's greatest economic heydey.
There is not a man living worth more than 5 mill a year.
Last edited by Jugflier
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
“Ventor,
Your version of doublespeak is lost on me, I have been innoculated to your CIA techniques. If you were to come out of your basement office away from your memeory hole, you would find that it is 2010, not 1984.

The rich pay less now in taxes as a percentage of their income since the depression, and with corporatism, they pay even less. We have been practicing a free trade, no tariff policy for 15 years, and trade deficits are at record levels.”
Juggie,

I suspect you inoculated yourself with a rusty nail. Still, have delusions that I’m CIA and you’re important enough to warrant their notice?
I spent little time in a basement, except when retrieving wine from the cellar, or placing more in it. I enjoy being amongst people, not hiding in cellars.

As to taxes as a percentage of income, you are citing the old high tax rates. However, you neglect to cite that most people in those brackets either, used tax shelters or capital gains to increase their wealth. You’re mixing apples and lemons. JFK lowered the rates to draw funds from the shelters and into investments, which increased jobs.

As it cited and you conveniently neglected, that for the last three decades, the wealthy increasingly paid a higher percentage of their income, and taxes, in general. Once more:

“As for taxing the rich, In 1980, with Jimmy Carter still as president, the top 1 percent of filers, with an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes.

That was actually less than the total tax share of people collectively in the 11th to 25th percentiles, middle income taxpayers making between $24,000 and $35,000 (in 1980 dollars).

A decade later, despite Reagan's tax cuts, the top 1 percent of filers were paying over 25 percent of the country’s tax bill.

The portion of taxes paid by the top filers grew throughout the 1990s and into the new century. By 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.

http://www.realclearmarkets.co...and_their_taxes.html

As to tariffs, here is a link to something you believe doesn’t exist. Most of the no tariff areas are Mexico and Canada. We sell to them in turn. http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch10/T10-1A04.php

Facts, to the left, are such inconvenient things.

Juggie,

“93 percent of the wealth in America is controlled by only 10 percent of the people. Those 10% pay only 40% of the taxes. That leaves 90% of the people recieving 7% of the income paying 60% of the taxes.”

At least, cite such statements. As more than 50 percent of citizens don’t pay federal taxes, that skewers your quote. Doesn’t add up.

Quoted by me:

“In the UK, persons with dual US/UK citizenship are in lines at our embassy to pay their final tax bill and renounce their US citizenship. The US is the only country, besides the Philippines, that taxes a citizens income outside the home country. Those who renounce their citizenship will emigrate to Monaco, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Caymans, or similar with their wealth. “

Juggie’s statement:

“You make my point for me. These people have no loyalty to any flag, all they care about is making themselves filthy rich, then getting out and living like a king in some third world country. All the while impoverishing this country, and we use the tax code to encourage it. If we followed sound economic policies, the children and grandchildren of those people who renounce their citizenship will have to come back to us for bread.”

NO! Most of these are hard working people who see future as promised by the left. They know what happened in Argentina, more than once. They made money and enriched those who worked for them, or invested with them. More and more, Michelle Obama is looking like Eva Peron, without the tango skills. If they go to Monaco or Switzerland, they and their progeny should do quite well.

Juggie’s statement:

“Lets just cap CEO compensation at 5 million dollars and tax at 100% everything over that. That was the economic policy of this country for 40 yeaRS, during which time this country experienced it's greatest economic heydey.”

Even, if you did, it wouldn’t amount to much. Most great wealth grows thru investing. Cut that out and you will ensure the next Microsoft will be in India or China.

It must be interesting to live in a sidereal universe where the laws of economics don’t apply.
J JugflierHall of Famer
quote:
It must be interesting to live in a sidereal universe where the laws of economics don’t apply.


the economic policies I advocate were the law of the land for 40 years and lead to the greatest time of wealth creation AND distribution.
The policy you advocate has been in place since 1983 and has bankrupted the country and created an upper crust social class who enjoys all the benefits of this country and pays virtually nothing for it.

quote:
The portion of taxes paid by the top filers grew throughout the 1990s and into the new century. By 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.


Thats because the tax cuts for the rich under Reagan increased the number of people in the top bracket while reducing those in the middle class, a trend that continues today with the almost complete destruction of the middle class.
Wake up, it is middle class people advocating for government run healthcare, retirement, ect. All this because they have seen those things disappear under corporatism so the CEO can get his 100 million bonus.

quote:
At least, cite such statements. As more than 50 percent of citizens don’t pay federal taxes, that skewers your quote. Doesn’t add up.


That makes your position even more condemning than it is. That means 40% of the population pays 60% of the taxes. That would be the consumers and the middle class.
But it isn't about income taxes only, it's about all the other taxes combined.

What you don't understand is that under your philosophy, taxes may be lower for some, but inflation has devoured far more monetary value than taxes.
J JugflierHall of Famer
quote:
Even, if you did, it wouldn’t amount to much. Most great wealth grows thru investing. Cut that out and you will ensure the next Microsoft will be in India or China.



More George Orwell DoubleSpeak.
You tell us that the current tax rates of 34% are driving people to renounce their citizenship and go to other countries, then tell us we might lose the next Microsoft to China if we raise taxes on the rich.

Take a look around you Mushroom, those places are ALREADY OVERSEAS.

You can't decide if you are coming or going.
quote:
Facts, to the left, are such inconvenient things.


Somebody turn Interventor right side up please.
Ventor,
You advocate tax cuts for the rich and free trade without tarriffs. Both of these philosophy go back to Laissez-Faire economics which in times past was called "Classical Liberalism"
You my friend are the one advocating liberal economic policies. I advocate an America first policy. America, love it or get the heck out.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Five people play poker. Two people win more than they lose night after night. At the same time, three always lose more than they win. How long before the three are bankrupt? This is a high stakes game of poker, problem is, the leaders of our country don't understand how to use their leverage. Sometimes you call a bluff.


Poker is a zero-sum game. Trade is not.

As to the rest of your statements, I agree that our current political environment favors the wealthy. That is what happens when you allow the wealthy and their friends to hold offices that make such crucial decision that effect the rest of our lives. I think you have this vision where we can somehow elect politicians who put the American people first. That doesn't exist.
J JugflierHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by wow:
Not educated enough...yet... to enter this discussion, but wanted to say thanks again.watched the suggested videos and OMG this ought to be required viewing for all citizens, especially students.


You have pretty much three economic schools.
Keynesian Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

The Chicago school of economics, the most famous of it was Milton Friedman (may his name forever be cursed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

And the Austrian School of economics. The Austrians are the most sound in principal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

The supply side economic theory espoused by Milton Friedman is the old economic theory used by Great Britain the steal the wealth of it's subjugated territories like India in the late 19th century to early 20th century.
It is an economic policy designed to steal a countries wealth and leave it totally impoverished.
T tigrtrekHall of Famer
Actually most Austrian economists I have heard or read would be deeply skeptical of higher marginal tax rates and trade barriers. I can't see how we ever get to a true laissez faire world where transactions are free from state intervention. What we have now is crony capitalism where favored industries (housing, automakers) and favored firms (Goldman Sachs) are able to derive benefits from the public sector through effective lobbying to the detriment of everyone else.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
Juggie’s post:
“The economic policies I advocate were the law of the land for 40 years and lead to the greatest time of wealth creation AND distribution.

The policy you advocate has been in place since 1983 and has bankrupted the country and created an upper crust social class who enjoys all the benefits of this country and pays virtually nothing for it.”

NO! The policies I advocate are those that took the US from an agrarian state to a world-class, modern society – the free market.

I assume the forty years you refer to is from about 1945 to 1985. The first 15 years saw the US as the only man standing after WWII. The other major powers had their factories bombed or otherwise destroyed and their workforce destroyed. There was no competition. After that, US industry got lazy and tolerated poor quality production.

JFK lowered the tax rates because of stagnating production. Jobs increased, as did the GDP.
Did you forget stagflation, and the miserable Carter years?

Juggie, again:

“Thats because the tax cuts for the rich under Reagan increased the number of people in the top bracket while reducing those in the middle class, a trend that continues today with the almost complete destruction of the middle class.

Wake up, it is middle class people advocating for government run healthcare, retirement, ect. All this because they have seen those things disappear under corporatism so the CEO can get his 100 million bonus.”

In case, you haven’t noticed, the majority of the people are extremely against Obamacare. As for SSI, surely you jest. At a two percent return on investment, that is scandalous.

Juggie;

“93 percent of the wealth in America is controlled by only 10 percent of the people. Those 10% pay only 40% of the taxes. That leaves 90% of the people recieving 7% of the income paying 60% of the taxes.”

Once more, provide the provenance for this statement. Snopes says, “nope!”

Juggie:

“What you don't understand is that under your philosophy, taxes may be lower for some, but inflation has devoured far more monetary value than taxes.”

Inflation is caused by running the presses. Reagan put a stop to inflation by limiting the increase in currency. Your statement would make Mr. Spock’s head spin for its sheer lack of logic.

Mine:

“Even, if you did, it wouldn’t amount to much. Most great wealth grows thru investing. Cut that out and you will ensure the next Microsoft will be in India or China.”

Juggie:

“More George Orwell DoubleSpeak.
You tell us that the current tax rates of 34% are driving people to renounce their citizenship and go to other countries, then tell us we might lose the next Microsoft to China if we raise taxes on the rich.”

First, doublespeak was coined by Orwell to describe the words of the left, which he detested. Juggie, you aren’t a double, plus good, duck speaker, either!

What is driving those who wish to protect their wealth from our shores is a combination of the looming largest tax increase in history and the massive debt their children must bear.

The major taxes increase include:

For income taxes, the full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%.

The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.

For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax will ensnare 28.5 million families, up from 4 million last year.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

The research and experimentation tax credit will end.
http://community.tasteofhome.com/forums/t/791069.aspx

Mine:
If they go to Monaco or Switzerland, they and their progeny should do quite well.

Juggie:

“If they go to a country with no market and that does not produce anything their wealth will be a thing of the past in one or two generations. It's called inflation and cost of living.”

The Swiss and Monegasques have markets and produce wealth. Improper use of wealth results in poverty in any nation. As the French say, “ clogs (wooden shoes) to boots to clogs, in three generations.”

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×