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

Not being an expert on Hong Kong real estate, can you care to explain to me if your line of logic is the following---

Current Hong Kong model=good=based on high land value=higher taxation=more ability to fund public programs?

Essentially, higher land value=higher taxes=more money for funding?

which really, if you think about it, more investment in public works=more private investment=higher land value=etc.

Because that is a line of thought that is easily replicated elsewhere, and forms a pretty significant part of the basis of the dominant economic school of thought.

 

I've been busy going back and forth from Austin and Houston, selling a house, but I couldn't let this gem pass. Are you serious? It was a civil war. It was fought over slavery and state's rights. The South fired the first shot and the most important battle of the entire conflict was fought in Pennsylvania when Lee invaded the North to force an end to the war. Those are a couple of facts. There are many more, of course, but my intention was not to derail this thread. It was to make a point and I wonder if you even read all of my post. And just to be clear, this is coming from a native Texan, who's family goes back to the Texas Revolution, and who has ancestors who fought for Texas during the Civil War.

Maybe you should read some histories about the war, its origins, and so on. Might be educational for you. No thanks needed for the suggestion.

 

I don't understand this line of argument. On one hand you propose that S&P has tarnish any of its remaining credibility. On the other hand you propose that they further tarnish their non-existent credibility by not releasing their opinion (which may be right, consider the possibility) by waiting until everything tides over.

Which is it? Should they or should they not improve their image problem?

I'm sorry, this is not necessarily directed at you, but help me out here. Not that Bush didn't run things into the ground, but that is one of those **** slanted graphs.

So let's suppose it's not September 11, 2001 but rather September 11, 2009 (Obama's second year) or September 11, 2011 (10 years later, assuming Obama is re-elected), Obama (and of course, the American people) wouldn't have went to war? I mean, Iraq you can pin on Bush all you want, but Afghanistan isn't included in both bars because...?

And then of course are the Medicare drug benefits. As I seem to recall, it was one of those typical term-end bribery changes because Bush was facing a potential loss in the re-election; and a Liberal agenda. As a matter of fact, I recall the Republicans were just about to defeat it in the House before Cheney beat them into line, while Harry Reid almost openly bribed members in the Senate. It barely passed 218 - 215 in the House. Once again, so the Democrats WOULDN'T carry out that bill had they been in power?

You know you're playing politics when you toss out your own favoured agenda because the other guy proposed it to bribe your constituents... even if it was one of your favoured agendas.

 

That graph is erroneous and flawed in too many ways to list, but most importantly, it does not include the trillions of dollars spent on QE1 and QE2. QE was a way to reduce the impact of the debt by artificially keeping interest rates low and devaluing the currency. It's the most politically cowardly way to deal with the debt burden -- by using inflation. It's an outright assault on the lower classes of our society, as it drives up food and energy prices, which impacts low-income consumers disproportionately. There are three ways to get out from under a debt burden -- 1. Pay it off with budget surpluses 2. Default 3. Inflation. Inflation is not nearly as transparent as 1 or 2 and is not something that is voted on -- perfect for a cowardly administration like this one.

For the entire 2.5+ years of Obama's presidency, interest rates have been held darn close to zero by the Fed. Never has monetary policy been this accommodating -- yet the economy still sputters and is on the verge of collapse. That's how bad this guy's economic policies truly are. $4 trillion in deficits in 2.5 years, surging regulations, constant threats of higher taxes, EPA overreach, dramatic growth in government, advancement of antiquated pro-union profit destroying policies, refusal to balance the budget, heck, refusal to even propose a budget, refusal to address entitlement reforms, and the demonization of private individuals and companies. We need leadership -- not cowardice and incompetence.

 

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Assuming single filer status, no AMT, standard deduction + personal exemption, non senior citizen, etc etc etc (all of those necessary to give a comparison)

Taxable Income -- Effective Rate
$15,000 --------- 10%
$25,000 --------- 12.26%
$35,000 --------- 13.33%
$45,000 --------- 14.08%
$50,000 --------- 15.43% <-- This is median household income right here, on single status
$60,000 --------- 17.33%
$70,000 --------- 18.6%
$80,000 --------- 19.5%
$200,000 -------- 25.07% <-- "Rich," single filer status
$250,000 -------- 26.72% <-- "Rich," married joint status
$1,000,000 ------ 32.71%

Now... taking into account LT dividends/capital gains rate as well as the countless itemized deductions I'm sure you'll point out to me, effective tax rate by AGI, courtesy of the IRS:

Bracket ----- Effective Tax Rate
Top 1% ----- 23.27%
Top 5% ----- 20.70%
Top 10% ---- 18.71%
Top 25% ---- 15.68%
Top 50% ---- 13.65%
Bottom 50% - 2.59%
Average ----- 12.24%

... and that is to say just the rate, and nothing about the actual dollar amount paid. This is not the first time you purposefully tried to misrepresent the issue nor the first time I pointed it out to you.

 

So you're not at all concerned with YOUR OWN FIGURE that the top 1%/top quintile/whatever already pay the highest effective tax rate (i.e. progressive as supposed to regressive, as I thought was your point), you're just concerned that the top 1% ONLY pays 19% federal income non-payroll tax? What rate should it be?

 

Oh boy, another typical lie by GladiatorRowdy. Why ain't I surprised.

 

Um no. His number, according to the IRS and the CBO (perhaps you care to suggest a better source) incomes and I quote "the largest tax revenue sources," namely, income tax, corporate tax, sales tax and payroll tax.

But what am I saying? Don't let facts get in the way of your bullsh1t.

 

Economics is now the greatest source of obfuscation in the national dialogue.

 

I think I know about the Civil War.

Are you really saying the South was the aggressor nation? How come 99 percent of the battles were fought between an invading Northern army and a defending Southern army. As I mentioned in another post, the terms of Northern victory were Southern capitulation - that is the destruction of the CSA as a political entity. The terms of victory for the South? - just withdraw the Yankee forces. Heck I think they would have been okay with ceding West Virginia (and arguably Kentucky but honestly Kentucky's status as a member of the CSA is tenuous at best. I don't even consider Missouri).

The war was not about the abolition of slavery until the proclamation and Lincoln never ran on a platform of abolition. Emancipation was a political tool to used pretty much dispell any possibilty of European intervention. After that - the North absolutely possessed the moral high ground.

How many Southerners would have volunteered if the terms and goal of Southern victory was invasion of the North to secure slavery? Not many. Heck even the esteemed General Lee lost a lot of men to "furloughs" during the Antietam campaign. As far as Gettysburg? Yes it was a huge battle. But you have to consider that any major offensive moves carried out by the Army of Northern Virginia would have had to be huge - considering the attention both governments gave to the Eastern theatre. I don't consider Jackson's feints in the Shenandoah to be truly offensive in nature. In fact I'm not sure if he ever passed beyond Virginia during that time. Jubal Early's 1864 campaign was not major by any means and is not mentioned in many books at all. The only other strategic offensive move of note are Bragg's Kentucky campaign. So, in my opinion, all the Southern incursions into Northern territory pale in comparison to Northern moves of the same nature. I say all this only to reinforce my argument that the main motivation of the Southern soldier was defense of their homeland.

I recall something I read about from Shelby Foote years ago. Something to the lines of "I'm fighting because you're down here." I think that pretty much summed up the motivations of your typical Southern soldier. I consider Shelby Foote to have a slight pro-Southern slant (gonna get flamed for this I'm sure) but I respect his opinion very much.

No - I don't have Texan ancestors who fought in the war. Me being a Chinese person makes it sort of hard. But being Asian does not relegate me to only be knowledgable of Asian history. I believe that knowledge is gained through reading and learning - and not transferred through our genetic code. For example, I would not automatically express disdain your knowledge of Chinese history just because you are not from China.

No I don't thank you for your suggestion.

 

And Deckard. On a serious note that we might agree with?

I think the Southern allegiance with the GOP has a lot more to do with Christian/social views. The tax thing just sort of falls in line. The GOP just has to mention "abortion", "gay marriage", "gays in the military", and "flag burning" every 4 years to assure their continued allegiance.

When the South became solidly GOP - they started dominating the GOP platform as a whole. The GOP's Yankee roots (I suppose this is a good tangent to our Civil War argument) have been pretty much severed.

 

hahaha.

the top 400 Americans own more than 60% of the bottom half by net worth.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...l-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

You're quibbling like deepblue.

How am I "misrepresenting" the issue? If anything, you're misrepresenting my views...again. The only mistake I made was maybe saying the top 1% pay an effective 18% tax rate when in reality it is the top 400 richest Americans. Fair enough. That was on off-hand memory, and it was pretty damn close anyways. I don't see how it's any less shocking that the top 1% pays an average of 23% or 18% or 19%---it's the same ******* range. I NEVER claimed it was a regressive tax. I merely posited that it was a shocking number. It clearly is, you and deepblue are rushing all over to search out projections of 23%, woopdelashoop. Let's pat ourselves on the back guys, average tax rates have been declining for the top 1%, their share of the wealth has been increasing drastically, and America is running a crippling deficit that will probably see schoolchildren go without food aid or properly funded schools, teachers laid off, SS commitments waved off etc. to solve.

Of course, part of the reason why the number flutters around is that it is hard to pin down proper research. As an example, you assumed single filer status---socioeconomically speaking, I would assume a lot of the top 1% would be a head of household or married, since wealth tends to cultivate the ability and clout to marry, or to care for dependents, or more so than the bottom 50% in any case. Whether or not that is true would take a sociological study...regardless, your numbers are based on assumptions. You laid out a ton of arbitrary conditions that skewed the truth behind the numbers to try to level the field and make comparisons (which I have no idea why you did---the whole point wasn't that it was a regressive tax system, the whole point was that the rich were paying historically low average tax rates, and it was a shocking rate) and all you got out of it is that the effective tax rate is higher for the top 1% than the rest of America. Which was never my point anyways.

Anyways, as I noted earlier, there are distinctions between the top 0.5% that tracks money on financial speculation, and the bottom 0.5% that act as rich workhorses. Those that make their money on "financial ingenuity" need to be hit with (at least) an expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the corresponding 20% capital gains tax rate, and maybe other assorted speculation taxes. It's fairly obvious that the richer you are, the less tax you pay in the 1% bracket---and that makes sense. The poorer side of the 1% bracket has more solid income---they're the doctors and high-powered attorneys. They might not be able to deduct as much as you, and they certainly don't have the luxury of putting too much income into the 15% capital gains tax. The richer you are in the bracket, the lower you effectively pay, so in that respect I suppose it is regressive. Even if they pay more than the poor, the richest pay less than their hard working W-2 brethren. That needs to be fixed.

Second, I would love to see an effective tax rate in line with the stable social democracies out there, but that's a pipe dream. As of now, I would personally settle for Clinton-era rates. no use asking for eisenhower rates, heh?

What it comes down to is that a lot of Americans are going through pain, and the top 1% has a historically low tax rate. It shouldn't be too much to ask for an increase in these dark and unbalanced budget times.

 

And, as I said, in order for your "analysis" to work, you have to ignore ALL of the other taxes, which constitute a rather small percentage of a wealthy person's income, but make up the majority of taxes paid by the middle and lower classes.

As far as the Fed goes, you need to go back to school as you don't seem to get how it works.

 

Oh boy, an unfounded assertion by MFW without a shred of data to back it up. Why ain't I surprised?

 

Those may very well be the largest federal tax revenue sources, but the middle and lower classes pay far more local and state taxes than federal. Again, y'all want to talk about income taxes as the be-all, end-all of taxation, but that doesn't show the entire picture and you damn well know it.

The facts are getting in the way of some bullsh!t, that is certain, but it ain't me slinging the manure.

 

Sorry but this revisionism misses the boat; to say that "Lincoln only brought up the abolition in the end", as is frequently done by confederate romanticists, ignores the forest through the trees - slavery was deeply opposed (as it should have been) from before the US even existed, was a festering sore on the national conscience of the framers themselves (aside: the framers of course had lazer-vision and adamantium balls whose dead-hand control must bind us, as we can't mention the framers without making them be demi-god-men today), and the reason why the constitution built in so many strictures to allow minority rule -whihc are totally f-king with us today, but that's another issue.

The fact that slavery was basically not going to make it in spite of these strictures due to the demographic/economic dominance of hte North caused the south to secede - the modern revisionism that tries to divorce states rights and slavery into neat little buckets reminds me of the tea partiers who claim they were against GWB's years in office.

 

I said Lincoln brought up Emancipation during the middle of the war - not the end. I totally agree with you that slavery was the one most startling distinction between the two cultures. If it did not exist - there would not have been a war. I totally get that.

However - I do not think the typical Southern soldier enlisted to "protect slavery". They fought, as Foote (or maybe it was some other one) put it "because you're down here". It was moreso to combat an invading force.

Do you consider Foote a revisionist? Or just biased. I suppose the 2 are tied together.

Unfortunately, most Civil War historians do seem to have a slight Southern bias - which is what may have made them Civil War historians in the first place.

I totally agree with you on the deification of the Framers - btw. Huge effort was used merely to stave off the North-South confrontation - which is not relevant today. Also - in a nutshell - times have changed. For example, I dunno if the whole gun rights thing was envisioned to include handguns, semi-autos, etc.. Back then - smoothbores had an effective of 50 yards(?) and you got off one or two shots a minute.

 

Oh this is a good one, then please explain to me how FED does QE without printing money.

I will be eagerly waiting for this one.

 

“Well, this fear of inflation is way overstated. One myth that’s out there is we’re printing money. We’re not printing money. The amount of currency in circulation is not changing. The money supply is not changing in any significant way. What we’re doing is lowering interest rates by buying treasury securities. And by lowering interest rates we hope to stimulate the economy to grow faster."

Was this as amusing as you thought?