Politics and Religion

Ken Feinberg? Seriously, a compensation attorney
St. Croix 308 reads
posted

to address income and wealth inequality? How about I send Feinberg to a weekend retreat on an offshore rig in the Gulf? Let some of the BP boys have their way with him (lol).

Is this 10% on real estate one-time or annual? If someone is underwater as Piketty mentions, are they excluded? If they are underwater because of self-inflicted stupidity (they refinanced too many times), are they excluded as well.  

You better be real careful when you start taxing existing assets. First billionaires, then millionaires. You don't want to go down the "means-testing" road.  

I would consider reading Piketty if there was a Cliff Notes version. In fact, I mentioned the value of Cliff Notes on one of my business trips to France. The 2 Frenchman and 1 French woman collectively spit up their cafe au lait. Something about American efficiencies that rub the French the wrong way.  

 
 
Posted By: marikod
      No wonder you don’t like him LOL. As usual, I see through all the masks to the very heart of these issues. Of course, we would need to have a deduction for  the good looking posters who own real estate in Texas.  
   
         You know, if Segolene had been elected, we might have seen some of his ideas in practice by now. He’s does a good job identifying the problem –  thanks to the miracle of compounding, the rate of return on investment quite often outruns growth. In short, the rich get richer without actually producing anything. But his remedy of draconian taxation makes me shudder. Give the money to government? I don’t think so. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the Buffet-Gates “give your money to charity” either. Charities are about the most inefficient users of capital you can find.    
   
        I say we need a mechanism to divert extreme wealth to entrepreneurs.  We'll put Ken Feinberg in charge of it. That’s where it should go. But, in the meantime, let’s try his 10% global tax on real estate, with the Texas deduction. It couldn’t hurt to try, could it?  
 

St. Croix1735 reads

the French economist getting rock star status here in the U.S. Well, rock star status from liberal economists like Krugman, Stiglitz, Lew and others? I attached 2 links, one with a brief video interview, and a NY Times article, just to show how flexible I am selecting different viewpoints. It's always tough, at least for me, to listen to a Frenchman for more than 2 minutes without wanting to slap the shit out of them. I said Frenchman, not French women.

The devil is always in the details, but taxing over 1600 billionaires, how does that help the 99%, the 47%, or whatever percentage du jour of the day is?  

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/thomas-piketty-s-rx-for-income-inequality---you-don-t-need-to-go-all-the-way-to-socialism--151140824.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/books/thomas-piketty-tours-us-for-his-new-book.html

How long is his book; 6, 7, 800 pages. I'd be interested in reading it someday, but for now, I'll just start with what you presented here!

Snowman39275 reads

And people can't figure out why so much money is off-shore and not coming back.

These tax the rich schemes never work.  

Remember when they had the GREAT IDEA to tax Yachts because they were luxury items.  
Guess who got screwed.

Read and Learn...

No wonder you don’t like him LOL. As usual, I see through all the masks to the very heart of these issues. Of course, we would need to have a deduction for  the good looking posters who own real estate in Texas.

        You know, if Segolene had been elected, we might have seen some of his ideas in practice by now. He’s does a good job identifying the problem –  thanks to the miracle of compounding, the rate of return on investment quite often outruns growth. In short, the rich get richer without actually producing anything. But his remedy of draconian taxation makes me shudder. Give the money to government? I don’t think so. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the Buffet-Gates “give your money to charity” either. Charities are about the most inefficient users of capital you can find.  

       I say we need a mechanism to divert extreme wealth to entrepreneurs.  We'll put Ken Feinberg in charge of it. That’s where it should go. But, in the meantime, let’s try his 10% global tax on real estate, with the Texas deduction. It couldn’t hurt to try, could it

St. Croix309 reads

to address income and wealth inequality? How about I send Feinberg to a weekend retreat on an offshore rig in the Gulf? Let some of the BP boys have their way with him (lol).

Is this 10% on real estate one-time or annual? If someone is underwater as Piketty mentions, are they excluded? If they are underwater because of self-inflicted stupidity (they refinanced too many times), are they excluded as well.  

You better be real careful when you start taxing existing assets. First billionaires, then millionaires. You don't want to go down the "means-testing" road.  

I would consider reading Piketty if there was a Cliff Notes version. In fact, I mentioned the value of Cliff Notes on one of my business trips to France. The 2 Frenchman and 1 French woman collectively spit up their cafe au lait. Something about American efficiencies that rub the French the wrong way.  

 
 

Posted By: marikod
      No wonder you don’t like him LOL. As usual, I see through all the masks to the very heart of these issues. Of course, we would need to have a deduction for  the good looking posters who own real estate in Texas.  
   
         You know, if Segolene had been elected, we might have seen some of his ideas in practice by now. He’s does a good job identifying the problem –  thanks to the miracle of compounding, the rate of return on investment quite often outruns growth. In short, the rich get richer without actually producing anything. But his remedy of draconian taxation makes me shudder. Give the money to government? I don’t think so. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the Buffet-Gates “give your money to charity” either. Charities are about the most inefficient users of capital you can find.    
   
        I say we need a mechanism to divert extreme wealth to entrepreneurs.  We'll put Ken Feinberg in charge of it. That’s where it should go. But, in the meantime, let’s try his 10% global tax on real estate, with the Texas deduction. It couldn’t hurt to try, could it?  
 

It's always a good idea to tax the rich. I would be a little happier if IRS agents occasionally collected taxes from rich people with baseball bats like they did on the Sopranos, but, hey a guy can dream, can't I?  

Taxing rich people means that everyone else has a lower tax burden. And even Thomas Jefferson said it was a good idea for those who could most afford to pay taxes should be doing most of the paying.  

This also has an effect of lowering the excess supply in our economy, which in case you hadn't noticed, excess supply has caused some recent problems for us :::cough:::cough:::housing bubble:::cough:::

Since the recovery, the top 1/10th of 1% has made 95% of the income gains. Why the fuck shouldn't we be taxing them? What rational person would say that we shouldn't tax them, so we can instead tax people who are broke?  

The more we tax rich motherfuckers, the less money they have to bribe politicians.  

Prior to Reagan giving the rich a 50% tax cut, we had never had a national debt that exceeded 1 trillion dollars. Today it's 17 trillion.  

The solution is simple. Tax the rich until they cry uncle. Then club them with baseball bats.

Posted By: willywonka4u
It's always a good idea to tax the rich. I would be a little happier if IRS agents occasionally collected taxes from rich people with baseball bats like they did on the Sopranos, but, hey a guy can dream, can't I?  
  How much below nothing do you want to go?

 

 Taxing rich people means that everyone else has a lower tax burden. And even Thomas Jefferson said it was a good idea for those who could most afford to pay taxes should be doing most of the paying.  
   
 This also has an effect of lowering the excess supply in our economy, which in case you hadn't noticed, excess supply has caused some recent problems for us :::cough:::cough:::housing bubble:::cough:::  
   
 Since the recovery, the top 1/10th of 1% has made 95% of the income gains. Why the fuck shouldn't we be taxing them? What rational person would say that we shouldn't tax them, so we can instead tax people who are broke?  
   
 The more we tax rich motherfuckers, the less money they have to bribe politicians.  
   
 Prior to Reagan giving the rich a 50% tax cut, we had never had a national debt that exceeded 1 trillion dollars. Today it's 17 trillion.  
   
 The solution is simple. Tax the rich until they cry uncle. Then club them with baseball bats.

Register Now!