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

Freer, but they still have regulations and laws and government interventions. There is no such a thing as true "free market", everything is relative, not all government interventions are bad, in case you haven't noticed.

 

Fairness isn't real. It's completely subjective. What is fair by one person is unfair by another. So yes I dismiss it, because it's a useless goal to strive for because it has no meaning. What has meaning is what is good for the country - and at the end of the day, that is what is good for the 75% of us who try to work and strive to live a decent life. That's you, me, and most everyone here.

Is that fair to the poor? Is that fair to the rich? Probably not from their perspectives. So no, this country isn't about fairness. Fairness isn't a word used by the founding fathers, it's a word used by people living in China or Cuba.

And conservative talking points? You should talk to the folks who call me an extreme liberal. I guess that's how I know I am a moderate when I get called both a conservative and a liberal depending on whom I speak to.

Democrats, Republicans, whoever - all use the word "Entitlement Programs" because that is what they are. It's not a negative word, it's how legislation is defined.

And they have to be cut. It's just a matter of solvency. Entitlement Programs are consuming the entire GDP - it's just not sustainable. Fair or not, they can not continue to exist in their current form without bankrupting the county.

This country has never been about fairness. Never.

 

I am not saying they don't, but what regulations are you referring to?

a free market does not mean anarchy of course there are still laws.

 

We could use some of those hardcore anti-corruption measures. I'm still convinced we need an "abuse of power" multiplier on judgments. If someone who has been entrusted with public power uses that power in an abusive fashion then their sentence should automatically double.

 

In Hong Kong there is also a strong commitment to building public infrastructure, rigorous controls on land development, a major public housing and public health care.

 

I realize that in order for your "analysis" to work, you have to focus entirely on income tax, but that is not what I was talking about. I was specifically referring to taxes paid by the ultra-wealthy, capital gains and dividend taxes, and how they reduce the total tax burden to the point that an idle billionaire who makes the majority of his/her income from investments pays a FAR lower percentage of their income in tax than someone in the middle class or, worse yet, the doctor and his lawyer wife who make all or most of their income on w-2.

Warren Buffet's secretary reportedly paid ~30% of her income in taxes in a year (2006, IIRC) where Buffet paid ~18%. This is insane and the GOP wants to continue the trend to make it worse. I don't care how rich I get (and given my and my wife's education and career paths, I suspect I will end up in the range of the doctor/lawyer w-2 family), I will continue to point out the fundamental lunacy of expecting the rich to pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than do the middle class and upper middle class.

 

game. set. match.

 

Well then ... they're obviously socialists.

 

The numbers do include cap gain and dividend taxes, I agree the biggest tax break is not cutting the top bracket from 39 to 35, but rather the 15% cap gain rate. From the link you can see the top 0.1% paid slight less in % than the 1%.

The Buffet example is an extreme case which I am guessing he is paid little to none regular salary, pays a very small amount of payroll tax. Like I said, not comparable to normal folks, including the supposedly 1%.

 

Hong Kong's infrastructure and public programs are also very much dependent on the ultra high land value. Not a model you can replicate elsewhere.

 

Maybe Hong Kong's ultra high land value is dependent on the massive investment Hong Kong puts into infrastructure and public services?

 

Your numbers include ONLY income tax and omit all the other taxes, the regressive taxes.

Try again.

 

err, its a city on an island where land is very limited, again its a CITY not a country.

 

Again, the income tax number I am referring to does include cap gain and dividend taxes, that is what I was talking about all along.

Then again I am not surprised you are a little confused, after all didn't you claim the Fed did not print money for QE?

 

yeah, which is why Martinique, Palau, and all those other small island nations have such astronomical land values.

land value is determined largely by how many people want to be there. To deny that good infrastructure and public services do not have an impact on that is ludicrous. To say that the reason why the government can spend so much money on these things is because the land values are so high, is kinda like saying a baby birthed a mother.

Now, there are other factors in play---historical, political, geographical. But high land values are also based on how easily people can get around in that area, and also how comfortable they feel there.

 

As for any general argument against socialism...the countries in best working order these days (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Germany, France) have strong democratic socialist traditions with an adherence to balanced budgets with relatively high taxation and strong regulation.

I just cannot see how people are still on the pure free-market boat, especially with the epic collapses of Iceland, and Ireland. We're not even talking 2008 here, even though that should have sunk the "deregulated" free-market boat for good. Those two were about as pure of a cowboy free-market as you could have got, and Ireland adhered religiously to balanced budgets. Too bad they let the banks go ka-blooey. Guess who is near-bankrupt or already bankrupt now!

 

LOL, I didn't say high land value led to good public service and infrastructure, I said the current Hong Kong model is very dependent on the land value, because that's how a lot of the programs are funded. And that model is not easily replicated elsewhere.

 

Well I'm glad you have the world tied up in a nice tidy bow. I wasn't aware socialism was the simple answer to the nasty combo of social, economic, and cultural issues facing our country today.

Excuse my sarcasm, but I think there are a lot of other factors at play too.

 

Yes, well, many democratic socialist countries are doing quite well, others aren't. I'd say having strong regulation and a balanced budget would have contributed to that, and the evidence would bare me out based on what countries are going ka-blooey, and which ones aren't.

Is strong regulation and adherence to balanced budgets through higher taxation a solution to everything? No. But it's a better model than the one America has now. Is it going to solve everything? Hell no. Is it going to solve some things? Hell yes. Will it cause some problems? Yes. Will it ultimately solve more problems than it creates? I ardently believe so.

You're copping-out with your strain of logic. Stronger regulation and a fairer tax system can't solve everything, but you shouldn't disregard it just based on the fact that it can only solve some things.