quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Also, Taz, I asked you whether people are not entitled to be wealthy in your view.  I also asked at what point to taxation become so confiscatory that it becomes a sort of defacto slavery.  Oh...I also asked if you felt you were entitled to live to the same standard as the top neurosurgeon and, if so, why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I'm sorry, I just don't include Reagan from your list.  I think, especially by comparison, he was the best president the U.S. has seen since Theodore Roosevelt.  If you think there are a number of presidents since TR that have done a much better job, I would love to hear who they are and WHY THEY WERE BETTER. 

And I disagree. His deregulation of almost everything lead us to the place we are. The health care deregulations he implemented alone have crippled many.

I could not disagree with you more.  The sub-prime mortgage meltdown has done more to cripple this country in ten years than any other event you can point to in the last decade.  Go back to the social engineering of the Community Redevelopment Act by Carter.  I'm sorry Taz, you don't have a right to be provided with real estate.  You have the right to buy real estate if you can afford it but that was the issue, wasn't it; mandating mortgages for people that had no means to pay them?  The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act?  Lying to the public about the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  What about Obama's staggering federal budgets? Do you think those have been good for the country?  Do you think the drilling moratorium was good for the country?  Do you think forcing U.S. citizens to buy a product they don't want is good for the country?  Do you think Cap and Trade is good for the country?  I'm sorry, Taz, the Reagan years look a hell of a lot better than what this country is living now and what the future is for this country for the next 5-10 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I'm sorry, I just don't include Reagan from your list.  I think, especially by comparison, he was the best president the U.S. has seen since Theodore Roosevelt.  If you think there are a number of presidents since TR that have done a much better job, I would love to hear who they are and WHY THEY WERE BETTER. 

And I disagree. His deregulation of almost everything lead us to the place we are. The health care deregulations he implemented alone have crippled many.

I could not disagree with you more.  The sub-prime mortgage meltdown has done more to cripple this country in ten years than any other event you can point to in the last decade.  Go back to the social engineering of the Community Redevelopment Act by Carter.  I'm sorry Taz, you don't have a right to be provided with real estate.  You have the right to buy real estate if you can afford it but that was the issue, wasn't it; mandating mortgages for people that had no means to pay them?  The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act?  Lying to the public about the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  What about Obama's staggering federal budgets? Do you think those have been good for the country?  Do you think the drilling moratorium was good for the country?  Do you think forcing U.S. citizens to buy a product they don't want is good for the country?  Do you think Cap and Trade is good for the country?  I'm sorry, Taz, the Reagan years look a hell of a lot better than what this country is living now and what the future is for this country for the next 5-10 years.

Here is the entire text of the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977.
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html#fdic6500hcda1977

Here is the entire text of the Community Reinvestment Act Title 12 chapter 30:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_30.html

Nowhere in this Act is there any "mandate" for financial institutions to make subprime loans.

Conservatives like to blame ACORN et alia for "forcing" banks to make subprime loans.
In fact, rather than advocating subprime lending, "Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, "In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s", according to Inner City Press. "For example, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch commented to the Federal Reserve about the practices of now-defunct non-bank subprime lender New Century, when U.S. Bancorp bought warrants for 24% of New Century's stock. The Fed, rather than take any action on New Century, merely waited until U.S. Bancorp sold off some of the warrants, and then said the issue was moot." However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.[100]"

Now that the "CRA mandated banks to make bad loans" meme has been shown to be false, will you, as an honorable person, retract your assertion and admit that you were wrong, and simply repeating what you had been told by right-wing media?

The implosion of the market in subprime CDOs and reinsurance paper was, in large part (remember, nobody forced appraisers to inflate property values so mortgage underwiters could pocket more in fees, nor were underwriters forced to make no-doc "stated income" loans) the result of the misapplication of an equation by the mathematicion David Li which purported to use a single number (the equation's resultant) to evaluate the correlation of a basket of CDOs with respect to risk of default. The model is fairly simple; it uses a Gaussian distribution assumption, but the fault isn't with the model itself, but its use by Wall St. hacks who have absolutely no idea why the model doesn't accurately describe reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

I haven't heard conservatives blame ACORN for forcing banks to make bad loans. What I have heard is that Carter mandated that 30% of Fannie Mae's backed paper be risky paper and that under Clinton is was 50%. Are you saying that the Community Reinvestment Act is not mortgage discrimination? Look, if you are going to take our deposits and loan the money in the form of mortgages to people who never would have been approved for a mortgage prior to the Act, isn't that mortgage discrimination against people with acceptable credit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Other than filing single, he has no personal deductions.  You simply don't want to answer the question that is put to you.  If he has net income after all of his deductions, what is is tax liability.  It is a simple question that doesn't require a lot of parsing, we aren't filing this as a return.  I mean why you need  me to say that he is filing single, he lives in an apartment, I don't know what the fuck his homestead rebate would be if any.  I mean...c'mon, it doesn't have to be this laborious. 

My last question, which you still haven't answered, is how much taxation, in your view, is too much??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  When does taxation become a form of defacto slavery....or...if that is too incendiary, when does taxation become unfair in your view? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Well...I'm out of here.  What Taz DOES NOT want to say is the guy that has 1 million in taxable income is going to lose around $400,000.00 Federal and State taxes in the State of New Jersey.  This doesn't take into account what he will pay in property taxes or any of the other hundred myriad fines, fees, surcharges and tolls, some endemic to this State, some not.

Is it right?  Is it fair to take 40% from that guy?  Should we punish him and take more?  If the guy is a doctor or a lawyer or a rap star or an athlete or a hedge fund manager, should we take the position that he only made that kind of money by keeping someone else down?  And if so, shouldn't we take all of his money and, perhaps, put him to death too?

quote:

Other than filing single, he has no personal deductions.  You simply don't want to answer the question that is put to you.  If he has net income after all of his deductions, what is is tax liability.  It is a simple question that doesn't require a lot of parsing, we aren't filing this as a return.  I mean why you need  me to say that he is filing single, he lives in an apartment, I don't know what the fuck his homestead rebate would be if any.  I mean...c'mon, it doesn't have to be this laborious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Well...I'm out of here.  What Taz DOES NOT want to say is the guy that has 1 million in taxable income is going to lose around $400,000.00 Federal and State taxes in the State of New Jersey.  This doesn't take into account what he will pay in property taxes or any of the other hundred myriad fines, fees, surcharges and tolls, some endemic to this State, some not.

Is it right?  Is it fair to take 40% from that guy?  Should we punish him and take more?  If the guy is a doctor or a lawyer or a rap star or an athlete or a hedge fund manager, should we take the position that he only made that kind of money by keeping someone else down?  And if so, shouldn't we take all of his money and, perhaps, put him to death too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the forward motion of a car for instance is the obvious and observant outward quality thats first strikes the senses.  However there is the pistons and the crank and tranny and gas that is all required to power that observable forward motion.

That is to say that anger may have been the motivation for his paper but the underlying causes go typically noticed.  Many people feel betrayed now that we live in the information world as they become aware of how their trust has been betrayed.   I could think of much worse outcomes than dealing with and working out simple anger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The taxes arent reality based, especially since I didnt know you could write off 18% of your rent. What is he paying in rent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats the point, Bita. I dont know state taxes, what he can or should write off...

But, if a guy makes 1 million a year and doesnt have an investment or savings he can write off? A business owner to boot?

Just not adding up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Oh I see, the school thing - are you taxed at 90%? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

Although, as a matter of historical record, the highest rates of economic growth in the United States occurred when the top rate was 90% - go figure.

Economic growth slowed dramatically after the Reagan tax cuts, climbed after they were raised in Eighties - that's is what the numbers show, don't shoot the messenger.

You don't have to believe, me, go look it up - then we can debate why such a counter intuitive thing might have occurred, but at least you're going to have to explain that somehow, those are hard numbers.

The highest rates of growth were when the tax rate was 90%.  What you are ignoring or ignorant of is that back then there was a tax deduction for everything under the sun from multi-family houses, to hobby farms and on and on and on.  Reagan wiped out the majority of tax deductions in what was supposed to be a revenue neutral change to the tax code.  Get it???????  A revenue neutral change.  What that means is that when taxes were bumped up to 35% and then 39%, we were being taxed at some of the highest rates in American history.

I notice you didn't answer my question...nor did I expect you would.  BUT if you are going to praise taxes, you better formulate an answer to that question.  You better explain why our corporate tax rate is 35% and why more companies aren't trying to manufacture here.  I mean...the higher the tax the more incentive to operate a business here, right?????????  That IS what you are saying, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway


The drilling moratorium did NOT work because he has since eased it.  If you think disaster plans have been updated in 10 months you are overly optimistic.

Yes, Reagan cut funding to the mentally ill.  I'm not all that opposed to it.  I don't expect the government to satisfy every need.  In fact, they satisfy no need particularly well.  You complain about Reagan's increased spending but you don't mention the breakdown that Carter caused?  Jimmy Carter, hailed as one of the biggest failed presidencies in U.S. history?  Yes, compared to what we have now?  Reaganomics was brilliant and very similar to what was posited by JFK.

O'scumbag's budgets are much higher than W's.  Tell me what president prior to Bush had a 1.7 trillion dollar budget for one year?  Go ahead, we are all waiting.

As far as your uniformed and unjustified blame of the S&L failures of the 1980's, here is an article that you should read in order to edify yourself:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SavingsandLoanCrisis.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
Look, you think earning $375,000.00 is a lot of money?  It is a pretty decent amount, I will give you that but it is no King's ransom.  If a person makes 1 million per year, should he lose 35% of the amount over over $373,000?  Why should he?  Are people in your world not entitled to be wealthy?  A bright and ambitious person, skilled in their craft, who has drawn no entitlement pay from the U.S. should pay $300,000.00 in taxes?  And then their state taxes and property taxes and all of the other taxes?  When does it become slavery in your view, Tazzy.  I don't expect to lead a life comparable to a top neurosurgeon.   Do you?  If you do, why do you?