home

Citi Loses $3B In Quarter, Goldman Creates Foundation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:00:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Despite everything the federal government has done to prop up Citigroup, it remains very troubled:

The banking giant said that it had a loss to stockholders of 27 cents a share or $3.2 billion, compared with a loss of $2.9 billion, or 61 cents a share, in the third quarter a year ago.

The federal government owns 34% of Citi and pumped $45B into it. At this point, Citi looks like another AIG, propped up to save other Wall Street behemoths, like Goldman, which earned $3.2B in the quarter, in the midst of a severe recession. What's wrong with this picture? And how about this?

In part to allay criticism of its profits and bonuses, Goldman announced a $200 million contribution to its foundation, which promotes education. [. . .] Goldman also disclosed how much it had set aside for its annual bonus pool. It said that it had earmarked $5.35 billion in compensation and benefits, an increase of 84 percent from the year earlier period, putting it on course for a record payout to its executives by the end of 2009.

Sheesh. That does not even reach tithe levels. It is submedieval. The need to raise taxes on the super rich is manifest.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | High Broderism, HCR And Reconciliation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Citi Loses $3B In Quarter, Goldman Creates Foundation | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Holy **** (none / 0) (#1)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    I keep reading this line over and over:

    "putting it on course for a record payout to its executives by the end of 2009."

    because it makes no sense.

    The need to raise taxes on the super rich (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    The need to raise taxes on the super rich is manifest.
    And what would be the benefit of raising taxes on the super rich?

    Every branch of governement is geared (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    to making these guys more money. They should have to finance the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    I'll say it (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    Because it is a form of income redistribution which is drasticly needed right now.  The middle class holds up the economy and it is disappearing because the wages for the majority of us have not kept up with cost of living increases.  Taxes may not affect wages, but they can be spent on things that lower the cost of living for the middle class.

    The super rich are making waaaay too much money and frankly, that money needs to be redistributed to the middle/lower classes who actually use it, so our economy as a whole can function.  This money can be used for things like health insurance subsidies or public transit which affect the bottom line for a large group of people.

    Parent

    Exactly how much money would be gained? (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    And exactly how much is needed for the programs you mention?

    I ask because I heard a story on NPR this AM regarding a 'joke' Sara Silverman made saying that the Catholic Church should sell the Vatican and use the money to feed the poor.

    The Church responded that they feed more poor than any other private organization in the world and that the Vatican is worth about $900 million.

    The amount needed for feeding the world's poor is estimated at $44 Billion (with a 'B') per year.

    In that same vein, just how much of a real effect would raising taxes on the super rich have on those you want to help?

    Parent

    Every little bit helps (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    The fact that 44 Billion a year is needed to feed the world's poor does not stop me from donating cans to a local food bank.

    I am not saying we can solve all the world's (or even this country's) problems by taxing the super rich, but we can certainly start to make a dent in some of them.

    It's better (in my opinion) to put some of that money to work in government (and therefore the economy - yes government jobs are real jobs too - and often middle class jobs) rather than let it build up in the coffers of a few.

    Parent

    imo, it sounds like any benefit (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    would be akin to a gnat on an elephant's a$$.

    While I too do what little I can, regardless of whether it has a significant effect on the problem, I'm not so much in favor of forcing others to do the same.

    I can't really get behind the "screw them, they're rich - even if screwing them doesn't really help resolve the problem in any real way" attitude.

    It reeks a little too much of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity (the fundamental elements of bigotry) for me.

    Just my opinion...

    Parent

    It's not screwing them (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    in the end, the whole economy performs better.  A rising tide...  I also don't think it would be equivalent to a gnat.

    And frankly, the idea that adding a few percentage points to their taxes is "screwing" them is something I really can't wrap my head around.  It's not like I'm saying we should steal all their cats.

    Taxes have been around for a while, this isn't a new concept.

    Parent

    OK, (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    Much of the tenor of this thread (perhaps not you, specifically) is, essentially, "screw them, they're rich. I don't care if forcing them to pay higher taxes really does do nothing significant for us/them/anybody, just forcing those a*holes to pay higher taxes makes me feel better."

    That kind of stubbornness, irrationality and animosity just ain't my bag...

    Parent

    Good lord (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    "Screw them, they're rich"?

    As if "rich" were a genetic attribute inequitably distributed by Mother Nature!

    The super-rich didn't get super-rich in a vacuum.

    They got super-rich, when they got super-rich honestly, because of working people and a system of public education, not to mention a regressive tax structure and corrupt legislators at every level.

    And for an example of getting super-rich dishonestly, look no farther than the current "financial crisis," which has exposed Wall Street as a casino and, incidentally, the major power center of the federal government.

    But even if none of the foregoing claims were true, it would still be true that the gulf of inequality between the super-rich and the disappearing middle class is the stuff of which terrorism and/or bloody revolution is made. Is that what you want?

    Parent

    Wow. You convinced me. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    Absent an increase on taxes of the super rich we'll be beset by terrorism and/or bloody revolution.

    I'm with you now.

    Parent

    Well hang on (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    You're talking about two entirely different concepts here.  Taking money from the super-rich to redistribute as pure charity has its limits, obviously.  But when we talk about spending tax revenues on stuff like public transit, student loans, and the like, it's an investment that potentially has a big payoff at the end of the day.

    The belief, and it's part ideological and part empirical, is that a country with a robust middle class will prosper and do better over the long term than a country with huge income disparities.  You take money from Bill Gates not because you want to punish Bill Gates, but because if you spend that money on lifting families out of poverty and making sure their kids get a decent education and so forth, out of the ranks of those kids you're going to get the next 10 or 100 Bill Gates.  Whereas if you allow your country to move in the direction of having a small number of super-rich people, you limit the ranks from which the next generation of success stories can come.

    There's a limit, of course, because if you take too much money from Bill Gates then maybe no one will even want to be Bill Gates any more.  But I think we're a long way from the point where success ceases to carry a reward.

    Parent

    There's a limit, of course, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    There's a limit, of course, because if you take too much money from Bill Gates then maybe no one will even want to be Bill Gates any more.  But I think we're a long way from the point where success ceases to carry a reward.
    Exactly. Where should the line be drawn? It's all a matter of opinion.

    Parent
    Economics (none / 0) (#24)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    "Taxes may not affect wages, but they can be spent on things that lower the cost of living for the middle class." - Like private research into computers in the 80s, improved fuel economy...anything invented ever.  The purpose of capitalism is for the capitalist to appeal to consumers be making more productive use of inputs then could otherwise be realized.

    Parent
    Anything invented ever? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    You really want to go there?  Military funding is one of the biggest sources of income for a lot of robotic developers in research institutions.  Then there's NASA...

    People spend money on inventions because they think they will make money.  It's not like a tax increase is going to wipe out all the private capital.  You talk about research into computers in the 80s.  Back when taxes were HIGHER.  Clearly there was still plenty of private money to go into innovation.

    Also, let's talk education.  How do we expect to stay on the cutting edge without adequate funding for public education?  You can throw as much money as you want at a problem but if you don't have enough people who can figure out how to solve it it really doesn't matter.

    There are a lot of things that need to be funded in order for the economy to function well.  Not all of them come from private capital.  Innovation needs infrastructure and a consumer base to function as well.

    Parent

    We cannot have this conversation obviously. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    But I must respond to anything containing "you really want to go there".

    Military funding is one of the biggest sources of income for a lot of robotic developers in research institutions. (Yes and the skills of these developers are being used to further the military's demands rather than the demands of consumers.)  Then there's NASA...(financially unsustainable shuttle program...??? bidding up our best scientists to... and no, they did not invent power tools or even tang or velcro, despite you may have heard.).  

    People spend money on inventions because they think they will make money. (precisely, because profit = making what people want, demand)  It's not like a tax increase is going to wipe out all the private capital. (you're right on that point).   You talk about research into computers in the 80s.  Back when taxes were HIGHER.  Clearly there was still plenty of private money to go into innovation. (yes capitalists are intelligent).

    Also, let's talk education.  How do we expect to stay on the cutting edge without adequate funding for public education? (US public schools are cutting edge in education?  They employ a system from 1890.) You can throw as much money as you want at a problem but if you don't have enough people who can figure out how to solve it it really doesn't matter.

    There are a lot of things that need to be funded in order for the economy to function well.  Not all of them come from private capital.  Innovation needs infrastructure and a consumer base to function as well. (I agree but there's a whole slew of critical though on this, excuse me if you have read and dismissed after consideration, which at least to me strongly suggests that human beings could maintain some type of transit and water and electrical system wihtout a government taking money to operate it)

    Parent

    We can't? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    Regarding robotics research - they don't just build bombs.  They also work on building cars without drivers, anything you can automate.  That knowledge is not lost on the students just because it's also used on drones.  Trust me, I know a lot of them.  We will have flying cars and unmanned vehicles (for private industry) in a few decades with this knowledge.  Regarding NASA, bidding up our best scientists to make important discoveries in physics and chemistry which gets translated to students in colleges who then learn to apply this stuff in many different fields, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, aeronautics, etc... etc...

    U.S. public schools are not cutting edge because they are under funded, being my point.

    I agree that I will dismiss your final point, there has been zero indication to me that capitalists will sufficiently fund infrastructure projects on their own.  For what it's worth, I work in that industry, where there has been a significant effort in recent years to get private developers to foot the bill for many of these things (that effort undertaken by government employees who oversee such things).  The private developers fight as hard as they can to keep that number as low as possible.  And frankly, "some type" is probably insufficient.

    Parent

    So you're saying (none / 0) (#41)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    that government appropriation of money and resources in the sciences is superior to consumer led research?  

    Also, we're not counting the bodies I suppose?  

    "U.S. public schools are not cutting edge because they are under funded, being my point." Private schools with matching funds in matching areas get better results.

    So let me get the last point straight.  If the governmetn dissapeared you and your neighbors wouldn't fund the maintenance of the road you lived on?  You don't think any order would arise?  Someone won a Nobel for this type of research like 3 days ago.  

    Parent

    I'm saying (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    it's complimentary and we need both.  Because consumer led research often leaves gaps.  We can't always predict what the next big thing will be.

    Private schools require people to have lots of money.  I am not ok with saying only the kids of the rich can have an education.  It's not like only the kids of the rich can grow up to innovate.

    Finally, an order would arise?  You mean, a GOV'T order?  Neighbors DO already fund that maintenance.  Via taxes.  If taxes disappeared probably some would and some wouldn't.  The net result would be a worse product.  Frankly, having been to public meetings for this stuff, if we tried to do it via community input alone nothing would ever get done.  Most people have other jobs, and the only ones that bother to show up on this stuff are those that have a bone to pick and a lot of free time.  Who would hire people to do the engineering and construction?  Who would make the decision about what gets built?  Who would prioritize?  This stuff doesn't just happen to work itself out.

    Parent

    Ok. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    "it's complimentary and we need both.  Because consumer led research often leaves gaps.  We can't always predict what the next big thing will be." So cause the future is uncertain we should grant a monopoly right for an entity called government to take money and apply to whatever it sees fit?  Are you really just not counting the bodies?

    Public Schools cost money too.  Property taxes would be much less without them.  The teachers wouldn't be unionized to the detriment of the students.  I'm not saying giving money to educate the poor is bad, but the compulsory system has been getting worse year after year after year.  Getting rid of public school will help poor people is the premise.  

    As for your last point I mean come on...you haven't researched this subject whatsoever.  The questions you pose have been answered.  Yea, maybe they're wrong but you seem to be dismissive rather than discerning.  Also taxes are not voluntary - hence the distinction between a voluntary order and a violently induced order aka government.  

    Yadda yadda I'll see you beyond the thunderdome.

    Parent

    School Sucks Podcast (none / 0) (#72)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    This is well produced.  Check it out if you're interested School Sucks

    Parent
    CST it sounds like you want to (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    lose that race to the bottom.  Don't be loser socialist, join the winning team.  Will split a slice of bread in the unemployment line together- but at least will be winners.

    Parent
    unemployment line? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    that's a "loser socialist" program.

    We need to get rid of unemployment.  Who needs bread?  Let them eat cake.

    Parent

    Disclaimer - I'm not rich. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:32:15 AM EST
    The Fed and remaining banks prop up the stock market through liquidity fueled speculation.  "Raising taxes on the rich" will hurt the liquidity speculators (who essentially charge everyone else 'rent' in the market through volume pumping) less than actual productive capitalists.  It would be damaging to the entire economy as the productivity of a capitalist's dollar (non-liquidity speculator) vastly exceeds that of government.  

    The real problem here is allowing the Fed and Goldman to maintain relatively stable dollar while making money taxing all dollar holders via printing and also retaining value in their fixed income agreements which should have inflated into nothing OR defaulted through a natural market mechanism (no bailouts).  

    Parent

    The bills must be paid (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:51:44 AM EST
    Your challenge is to find a better way to pay those bills, not to offer up the truism that taxes take money out of the economy.

    Parent
    Read what I wrote. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    If you don't understand it ask a question.  

    It's no my nor anyone's job to pay bills other people accrue.  If everyone else in the US died today, I'm not obligated to pay China back or rebuild a bridge in Iraq.  

    As far is taxes/truism I had just wanted to be clear since a lot of people still operate under the fantasy land assumption that a government wealth multiplier exists.  

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    but if you want to opt out of society altogether, then you don't really get a say on whether we raise taxes on the rich or not.  Just go on pretending to be your own personal sovereign and deal with whatever consequences may occur.

    The government has programs it needs to fund.  The government has a debt it needs to repay.  If you have a better idea for how it can fund those things than raising taxes on the super-rich, be my guest and suggest it.  But if you want to just sit there and argue that the whole system is illegitimate then you're not really part of the conversation.

    Parent

    I;m ghlad you're back (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    But let's watch the tone ay?

    At least when addressing people other than me.

    Parent

    True dat. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:22:06 AM EST
    This is slightly sassy though "Your challenge is to find a better way to pay those bills, not to offer up the truism that taxes take money out of the economy. "  

    Point taken.  

    Parent

    the problem... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    ...is we have the most regressive tax structure in this nation since the gilded age.

    everything else is pieces in a rigged game.

    wake up.

    Parent

    Red Pill Blue Pill (none / 0) (#15)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    Are you suggesting the world would be better off if the capitalists who brought us innovations since the gilded age were all taxed at much higher rates so that the US government could do what it would like with their money?  Did the government really help the US citizen since then?  FHA, SS?  Have private market inventions not been of much greater magnitude?  

    The violently enforced protection of corporations is unjust.  I understand we don't live in a capitalist country.  That said, capitalist are the only ones capable of a 'multiplier' of sorts as their innovations allow for productivity increases.  

    I get that the people receiving bonuses don't deserve them...but the only reason their businesses are still operating is from a bail-out.  By responding with a unfocused action like instituting a higher tax on the rich you are still handicapping the most productive members of society and not addressing the primary problem of how a non-productive entity is receiving government money/support allowing the payout of record bonuses.  

    Parent

    Most productive seems rather subjective (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    when alot of the wealth that is generated isn't from actual production but rather from investment.

    I'm in the camp with the folk who believe there needs to be a tax increase on the upper 5%. They have benefited from our government for over a decade. It's time for them to give back.

    Parent

    I made the distinction (none / 0) (#18)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    between liquidity pumpers partnered with the Fed and actual production.  My point was that simply "taxing the rich" unfairly penalizes the latter group for the egregious (and only possible via government assistance) crimes of the former.  

    Parent
    I'm not even just talking about the liquidity (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    pumpers. Do you really want to argue that the guy who ran Pfizer or Home Depot back in 2006 when shareholders experienced a loss were "productive" to the point where they earned their 200 million plus exit bonuses?

    In the ideal world you could tie income to productivity, here in the real world, not so much.

    Parent

    If you include (none / 0) (#20)
    by cenobite on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    The massive economic damage caused by the "the most productive members of society" I seriously doubt they are a net positive. (See "too big to fail bailoutpalooza", "Enron", "LTCM bailout" "the S&L bailout" etc etc etc)

    Tax 'em. Tax 'em 'till they bleed. Consider it "social insurance" to pay for the inevitable gigantic bailouts caused by their greed and fraud. I like the historical marginal rate of 90% on incomes over a couple million a year or so. And if they don't like it, they can move to Libertopia: Mogadishu, Somalia.

    Parent

    I made that distinction. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    You listed a slew of entities whose ability to rob the taxpayer is predicated on the power of government to redistribute wealth to them.  

    Operation bailout then tax is flawed in that it does not address the cause of the problem.  

    I mean really, there must be products you use (maybe your computer) that are only as efficient and cheap as they are by allowing the investors to circulate their profits back into areas their consumers show a willingness to spend money.  

    Taxing the rich would simultaneously inhibit their productivity and by extension your own.  The people you listed engaged in amoral actions only made possible by the indirect violence of the government and they did not deserve the bailouts or this liquidity scam being perpetrated by the Fed.  

    Increasing taxes will reduce private sector innovation in exchange for an increased ability by the government to spend money on...well whatever it is they spend it on (good portion is murder).  

    If you want you really want the board of directors of Google or a scientist on the verge of a solar panel breakthrough to move to Mogadishu you're an idiot.  Also - so long as external state powers arm small violent militias in Somalia it cannot be considered a post-englightenment rational anarchistic society.  

    Parent

    history (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    america's economic history does not support your POV, in fact its just the opposite.

    i would be curious to hear how private sector innovation was curtailed post WWII up until 1980, and also why obscene economic disparity is something we should be happy about.

    just what do the rich produce? what do they do that is so productive?

    Parent

    For example. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    A great deal of government expenditure is for defense.  By using tax payer money to research bombs, etc, the government is 1) taking private money which would have been used to make products demanded by consumers (rather than designed to murder) 2) reduced the supply of research scientists, increasing the costs to the just taxed private sector.

    An application of this theory that US defense spending hurt US private industry can been seen (and ofcourse this is just supporting evidence) in comparing the consumer electronics as well as automotive sectors of the US with Japan, a nation prohibited from defense spending.  

    How have US bombs made lives better vs superior japanese cars, electronics?  

    Parent

    interesting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    US defense spending didn't "hurt US private industry", again, the opposite is true. from united fruit, to oil conglomerates, to the paper industry, etc. the US military has acted on behalf of US private industry. our foreign policy, at the behest of the wealthy, has used our military might to stymie democracy, prop up strongmen, etc., all in the name of ever-increasing profit for the rich.

    and, to you japan example: note that japan's tax rate on the wealthy is higher (40%) than here in the US (35%)...

    one thing i do agree with you about: our military budget is radically out of control

    Parent

    I don't understand your definitions. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    If I take a gun and steal 5 dollars from you, did I just make a 5 dollar profit?  

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    my "definitions"?

    you are aware that we have sent the US military in country after country in order to protect US business interests right?

    Parent

    Dude (none / 0) (#39)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    that's the same as corporatism.  I'm terming profit as something not predicated on violence.  You are using it interchangeable ie Bill Gates = Mugger.  

    Parent
    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    you wrote passionately about how "US defense spending hurt US private industry", and when countered that US private industry is actually the one profiting from US defense you now claim that that is a discussion of corporatism.

    this conversation has become tedious and pointless.

    Parent

    The distincition (none / 0) (#63)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    was the whole point.

    Read my first post on the thread and let me know if you don't see where I made that clear.  

    If rape = love and theft = profit in your head then obviously we are coming from different angles.  

    Parent

    Irony alert (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Bill Gates Sr. actually turned down the tax breaks offered to him and believes an increase on the richest is the right thing. I took this from a Common Dreams article.

    "The elder Gates for years has argued that individual wealth is a product not only of hard work and smart choices but also of a society that provides economic development, education, health care, and property rights protection. Such an economy's top dogs benefit the most from tax-funded institutions and programs and therefore should not resent or seek relief from having to pay taxes, he has said."

    Wow! That sounds almost like what alot of us who are arguing for the tax increase are saying.  

    Parent

    False dichotomy. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    The issue is not 'resenting or seeking relief from having to pay taxes,' the issue is how much taxes to pay.

    False dichotomies are quite common here on TL...

    Parent

    Try again (none / 0) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    The top tax brackets have had their taxes reduced to the point of absurdity and it hasn't increased productivity(which is the argument that by the way is being made against increasing the taxes back to the levels that they were previously held at).

    Try to follow the conversation before blurting out accusations.

    Parent

    "Absurd" tax levels sounds kinda (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:50:15 PM EST
    like your opinion, no?

    [August 11, 2009] Productivity continues to rise and in Q2 in soared at an annualized rate of 6.4%, with unit labor costs falling at a 5.8 percent rate, the U.S. Labor Department announced Tuesday.


    Parent
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    that is a result of the rich doing their part and has nothing to do with a weak dollar or technology(rolling eyes).

    Furthermore the previous quarter it feel which seems to suggest that productivity can and will rise and fall regardless of the tax levels the top 5% are asked to pay.

    Parent

    The measures (none / 0) (#64)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    of productivity are obviously imperfect.  This is why we must rely on axioms rather than mathematical models.  

    Parent
    I don't know about irony. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    Point taken.  Bill Gates disagrees.  He also has IP law to thank for his 'profits' so who knows.  

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#36)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    "and, to you japan example: note that japan's tax rate on the wealthy is higher (40%) than here in the US (35%)... "  - While valid this criticism fails to consider the effects of currency creation which alters the real tax (which to be honest may strengthen your point since I do believe they lika da print print) but more importantly the effect of bidding resources.  

    If the government decided to produce toothpic model airplanes in high volume then the US economy would suffer from both a shortage of wood which would hurt other sectors.  

    Parent

    Oh and (none / 0) (#28)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    "also why obscene economic disparity is something we should be happy about. "

    obscene is subjective and i made it clear that i do believe corporatism is a violation of individual rights.  

    Parent

    subjectivity... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    sure, it is subjective.

    and, when a family has to choose between paying their rent, OR buying needed medicine, OR having food... they might subjectively view the 15% tax rate on hedge funds as obscene as the social programs they relied on are gutted, or denied from the start (single payer), in the name of fiscal conservatism...

    so, sure, it is subjective. if you look at things from the vantage of the uber wealthy, its not too surprising that things look good from that position. try looking the other way though. not as good.

    Parent

    Yea (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    cause the government helps people.  

    Look - if someone earns money, you don't have a right to take it.  Why?  Cause people have a right to their own property.  I agree - corporatism - that is the use of government violence to steal money under the guise of 'capitalism' - is wrong.  It's wrong for the same reason that taxing a purely free market producer would be wrong.  Money is exchanged involuntarily.  

    I also will say that if someone is starving I give them food.  Sick I give them money.  I give to charity...cause I care about people.  What I would caution against is giving a conceptual entity called government the ability to take money under the premise of helping others and then eat up over 50% in beurocratic costs (welfare).  Charities get over 95% to the end user.  

    Also, if you really care about people, giving taxes to the most violent empire in the history of earth is flat dumb.

    Parent

    Are you arguing (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    that Social Security, a government run program isn't helpful?

    Or that public education which is funded by the government hasn't been helpful?

    Or that safety standards or any of the other things the government is responsible for haven't moved our society as a whole forward?

    Our government isn't perfect but the idea that we'd be better off without government intervention and with a "free market" system is absurd.

    Frankly, it's great that you are willing to help others without it being compulsory but I would feel better if instead of buying a new tiara or diamond collar for Fido if Paris had to pay her fair share for a system that frankly has been more then beneficial to her and her family and that money is utilized to feed the poor or provide for social programs.

    Parent

    Barron Hilton, the 80-year-old son of the founder (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    Barron Hilton, the 80-year-old son of the founder of the worldwide hotel chain that carries the family name, has earmarked 97 percent of his vast fortune - nearly $2.3 billion - to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, to help the homeless with housing, find safe water in developing countries and assist other good causes around the world, it has been announced.


    Parent
    That's great (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    so we have ANOTHER rich person who understands that if he benefitted from this country's system that he has a responsibility to the provide a hand up to others.

    He should have no problem with taking of that "charitable contribution" and putting it toward funding a government that has helped his family prosper so that the next generation does not need to pay on his behalf.

    Parent

    I know, you'll never be satisfied. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:53:16 PM EST


    Parent
    that argument (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    can go both ways.

    When cutting taxes, for example.  How low is too low?  Or do you think we should just do away with them entirely?

    The fact is, we are at a historically low rate.  It is easier to make the case that raising taxes will not be detrimental to society, since it functioned in the past.

    Parent

    I agree, it can go both ways. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    That's my point. The issue here is not whether or not to pay taxes, it's how much to pay.

    And it's all opinion.

    BOTH sides can use mountains of cherry-picked historical data to "prove" their opinion is the right one, but it all still comes down to opinion. It's all best-guess.

    Economics ain't like engineering, much as you and I wish it were so.

    imo, raising the taxes on the super rich won't do jack for our economy, therefor I don't support it. If I did think it would make a significant difference, I'd be all for it.

    Others, like you, think it will make difference, (although I think you admited it'd be pretty small) and therefore support it.

    imo, however, there are many, MANY more who hold real animosity toward the 'super rich' and therefor support raising their taxes to, in some way, 'get back' at them.

    For them, obstinately holding the opinion that raising those taxes will have a significant and positive effect on the economy is merely an illogical opinion held only because it supports their animosity toward the super rich and their desire to 'screw' them.

    I have no love for the 'super rich,' but I do love solving problems.

    And, imo, raising the taxes on the super rich will not solve the problem.

    Moreso, it makes the problem worse because all the effort that goes into forcing the super rich to pay higher taxes is diverted from finding and building different avenues that actually would have a significant positive effect.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    I don't think it will be that small, or at least, it may start small but in a ripple effect kind of way end up big.

    My point earlier was just that even if it is small (since neither one of us knows how big it would be) doesn't mean it's not still right.

    FWIW - Not all engineering is like "engineering" either.  There's plenty of room for opinion there.

    However, in my opinion, I am right and you are wrong :)

    Parent

    Ha! At least we probably share the same opinion (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    on the chances the Titans will win this weekend...

    Parent
    The government kills people. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    A charity is nothing like it and is much more efficient in helping. Why the hell would you want the government getting that money over a charity?  

    Parent
    The government (none / 0) (#74)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:05:03 PM EST
    provides for defense and looks out for the interests of its citizenry.

    Certainly it is sometimes overzealous in its efforts, but overall its intent is not to kill.

    Furthermore, not all charities are created equal. For example, the NRV Habitat for Humanity is in the process of being sued and possibly losing their non profit status. They haven't filed taxes for several years as required. They haven't paid rent at either of their storefront locations(Christiansburg or Pulaski)either, the downturn affected the mortgage holders being able to continue paying their mortgages. With this in mind would you call this charity more successful than say a government run low income housing project that has a gusaranteed amount of funds? I wouldn't.

    That isn't saying there are successful charities out there and the intent isn't good just that their success rate is probably similar to the governments in many cases.

    Parent

    Shocker, I disagree (none / 0) (#76)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:40:53 AM EST
    "not all charities are created equal" People can choose which charity to donate to, causing competition and incentivizing charities to open up their books to the public.  There is no pressure on the government besides the occasional "vote" which on the begging to contract spectrum falls on the begging side, ie I cannot get my vote back even though I was promised no more Iraq.  

    "Certainly it is sometimes overzealous in its efforts, but overall its intent is not to kill."  Empirically it's clear that government does look to kill.  Charities don't kill millions of people.

    "their success rate is probably similar to the governments in many cases" - We know that's not true.  Charitable programs obtain above 90% efficiency in terms of getting money/education to those who need it.  Welfare is below 50% by many estimates.  Plus this still dismisses literally millions of homicides.  

    I'm not saying the idea of a government filled with individuals who actually mean what they say, want to help people and have the intellectual ability to manage an economy that no single person could ever comprehend effectively isn't comforting but it's the same clingy soft human tendency that makes super-heroes and gods popular.  Just try not to give too much money to proven murderers when chasing that dream.  

    Parent

    Outside of govt and taxation (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    and regulation, human nature radically transforms like magic. It's like becoming a member of the Unification Church or the Cato Institute.


    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    But those same people no longer hold the moral and legal right to gain an ends through violence.  It is very hard to change personal motivations, removing the moral and legal monopoly on violent initiation restores power from those running the system to those without the super-moral abilities of politicians.  

    A monopoly power such as government attracts people interested in abusing that power, thereby strengthening their ability to extract wealth, start wars, etc.  

    Parent

    It's the least Barron Hilton can do (none / 0) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:48:48 PM EST


    Parent
    The microprocessor (none / 0) (#73)
    by cenobite on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:18:17 PM EST
    And the internet both are results of government R&D. You really don't want to go here, your exemplars of private R&D actually take basic research from government labs and government subsidies to give you those products you're so excited about.

    It's absolutely shocking to me how little Libertarians understand about how the actual world functions.

    The problem with addressing "the cause of the problem" (e.g. the need for government to intervene in the economy to save hardship, money and jobs) is that bailouts are inevitable.

    In the real world, there are thieves, grifters and cheats. Some rob with a gun, some rob with a fountain pen. No matter what system you put in, they will find a way to cheat and steal.

    In the real world, there is no market without a government. In the system you advocate, where the richest rule the way they want to, the market dies quickly because most people simply won't trust any investments at all -- they have no choice but to assume everyone is a thief.

    Are you actually suggesting that if we take more money from the kids of the Walton family that will reduce "innovation"? I think it may have some negative impact on coke dealers, but who knows.

    You are flying in the face of history. The economy has always functioned best when the difference between the richest and the poorest is minimized.

    I don't understand what your problem is with Somalia. I mean, you can buy all the justice, drugs, vice and guns that you can pay for. No pesky government to get in the way of your maximum profits!

    Finally, the board of directors of Google? Are you kidding me? You understand that they contribute pretty much nothing to daily operations or research there, right? They're almost always rubber stamps for whatever the management team wants to do (in the real world).

    Parent

    It's all people not "government" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    the government is a concept whose cohesion is entirely dependent on the initiation of violence.  The "government"  didn't invent anything.  It was people.  

    You act like millions of homicides is not relevant.  

    Parent

    Societies cant freely organize (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    themselves into factions to protect their interests without violence?

    You act like homo economicus operating in some ideal Libertarian vaccuum is congenitally incapable of "homicide" or anything else ignoble.

    Spoken like a True Believer.

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    Societies are not "freely organizing" if violence is necessary.  Government is a label given to a group of people with the purported moral and legal right to initiate violence over a fixed geographical region.  I would argue that a free society would be one absent of government force to organize it per the desires of a select few.  

    Parent
    destructive (none / 0) (#23)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    the "most productive members of society" are neither productive, nor are they part of 'society' as the non-rich know it.

    Parent
    And you wondered why Rahm is pushing (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    Rangel out the door?

    When Rangel is in charge of writing tax legislation?

    Hmmm?

    Parent

    why... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    because it is good for the economy.

    raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy to pre-reagan levels, around 70%

    Parent

    And that is if you even believe their numbers (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    I don't know anything about finance, but I do know I don't trust these people.

    From the article, looks like Goldman Sachs (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    foundation was already in existence and this was a contribution to the foundation.  

    I'm not changing my title (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    I like my title.

    Parent
    Stubborn. I wonder how many contributions (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    GS has made since the bailout?

    Parent
    but gosh, BTD (none / 0) (#75)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    The need to raise taxes on the super rich is manifest.

    if you did that, why, they'd just all stop making money! probably move to another country or something.

    Citi Loses $3B In Quarter, Goldman Creates Foundation | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment