Credible

10/9/2012 12:12:31 PM

Got money I confess, yeah
And trash, yeah
I'm a Big Tymer nigga, yeah
Pulling trigger, yeah
A player hater to flip with, yeah
Gon' head and fill it, yeah

10/9/2012 12:27:51 PM

Romney finally releases the details to his tax plan.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

10/16/2012 1:09:58 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

10/16/2012 1:13:06 PM

^^
That's hilarious.

10/16/2012 1:25:20 PM

^^^ So win!

10/16/2012 4:08:18 PM

Shockingly, Romney's story about the binder full of women may have been less than fully truthful.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx

10/17/2012 7:28:33 AM

BINDERGATE.

10/17/2012 7:36:25 AM

^^site down, what was it?

10/17/2012 9:36:34 AM

Not a good source but you can get the gist from it

http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitts-binders-full-of-women-problem/

10/17/2012 11:38:46 AM

Which of these "loopholes" would Romney cap?

http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2012/10/costly-tax-deductions-2012-update.html

Exclusion of employer contributions for health care, health insurance premiums and long-term care insurance premiums $725.0
Deduction for mortgage interest on owner-occupied residences $464.1
Reduced rates on tax on dividends and long-term capital gains $456.6
Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings: Defined benefit [employer] plans $263.7
Earned Income Tax Credit $294.1
Deduction of nonbusiness state and local government income, sales and personal property taxes $230.30
Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings: Defined contribution plans $375.9
Exclusions of capital gains at death $230.8
Deduction for charitable contributions, other than for education and health $186.1
Exclusion for untaxed Social Security and railroad retirement benefits $188.8
Tax credit for children younger than age 17 $168.9
Exclusion of benefits provided under workplace cafeteria plans $197.6

[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM. Reason : Hint: It won't be capital gains. Romney said he'd expand that one.]

10/17/2012 1:41:25 PM

10/18/2012 12:20:16 AM

Bunch of malarkey

10/18/2012 1:10:32 AM

Trickle-up economics.

10/18/2012 4:12:44 AM

^^^How does rising corporate profits, and stagnate employment have anything to do with Romney's credibility?

If anything, it should be a reflection on Obama's considering he's the man in charge.

My personal, half educated analysis:

We see corporate profits bottom out, then sky rocket around 2009. This is probably due to the reactionary leaning out of employees through lay offs. Businesses are designed to turn profits, if you have unnecessary costs they are going to be cut or the business will fail... Costs go down, profits go up.

So why do we not see an increase in employment as profits increase? My guess: It's multifactoral... Technological improvements in efficiency & processes, arbitrage of labor (outsourcing), and corporate cronyism.

The government/Fed is pumping out imaginary money and distributing in an inherently inefficient manner. This will drive up prices and cost of living, and due to cronyism the money doesn't reach the people that need it the most (middle class) until it's been devalued.

So how can we bring back the middle class? I think Romney nailed it with making USA energy independent. Energy is the new currency of the world. I'm just curious (skeptical) how feasible and long term viable his plans are.

Obama's plan to bring manufacturing back to America is unrealistic, IMO. Unless we are willing to accept paying triple (arbitrary figure) the price for an iphone or a car. We simply can't compete on the world market with regards to cheap human labor. Nor can we compete, at the moment, with the supply chains that have been set up in China. If this new knowledge to you, do some research on Foxconn and see how efficiently that can mass produce custom hardware/fittings for their products.

The only way it seems remotely possible is to dramatically lower the cost of production in other areas, and having very cheap energy and an administration that is pro-business (businesses who want to in-source or use domestic processes/goods) are a crux for this.



[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 8:22 AM. Reason : moar words]

10/18/2012 8:15:08 AM

Quote :

"How does rising corporate profits, and stagnate employment have anything to do with Romney's credibility?"

It has to do with his notion that if we only tax and regulate big business less, they'll create millions of jobs. Corporations had an excuse to lay off millions of workers and have found they can operate at record profits without them. Forgive my skepticism that improving their profits even further will help.

10/18/2012 8:47:50 AM

but but... job creators? Yeah, job creators!

10/18/2012 9:06:56 AM

This is a very complex issue that extends beyond a mentality of "Business and corporations who make money effectively and efficiently are bad! Tax them more!"

If Mitt's plan is to crony it up and give huge back door deals to his plutocratic buddies, at the expense of the middle class, then I am absolutely against it.

However, how do you think jobs are created, value & products developed, and industries are grown? If businesses and the entrepreneurial spirit are stifled by public policies, where will this tremendous growth our economy needs come from?

Americans have become conditioned (entitled) to expect a luxury lifestyle at a discount price. Let me be clear: I mean luxury in the sense that almost any average American can walk down the street and purchase practically any product easily with credit. Milk, meat, gas, tech... all super fuckin easy to acquire due to corporations driven by profit.

We can't have cheap goods & services if the cost of producing them is high. Our country is becoming a service based economy, and unfortunately the middle/low class do not (can not?) offer services that have a high enough demand to be paid at a "living wage".

Businesses are risky ventures. Tack on government regulation and taxation and the barriers to entry only become higher. I'm a small business owner myself, I have put my livelihood on the line to get it started. I put in 80 hours a week and do not even pay myself to get this thing running. I'm sacrificing my sleep, my savings, my health... practically most of my life to get this business created. And once I am successful (profitable), I can't keep all of what I earned? That is infuriating.

Trust me, the government does not make easier for me to grow and hire people. In fact, I actively keep my business modeled in a way so I can keep hiring contractors to avoid the regulations and taxes that come from employing people.

Am I advocating no regulations or taxes? No. But the more there are, the more competition is stifled.

10/18/2012 9:43:47 AM

But the point is, as shown by the graph and many other resources, there is not now, nor has there been, evidence that helping corporations by reducing taxes improves the economy or creates jobs.

As someone who also works in the small business world, I'm curious which regulations specifically are hindering you or keeping you from performing well or becoming profitable? Which of these things to you think Romney or Republicans can fix, specifically.

Remember that Obama signed the Small Business Jobs Act that added deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000. He also for awhile raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investment and extended no capital gains taxes for small businsses.


[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 9:59 AM. Reason : *works and is an owner]

10/18/2012 9:53:19 AM

Well, first let me clarify that I am not pro-Romney, or anti-Obama. I am split by many issues, and mostly identify with libertarian principles.

As far as regulations and policies that hinder my business... I can't name a specific one that is having dramatic impact. However, things like ADA compliance, sign permits, and self employment taxes drove up a lot of my opening costs or bit in to my resources significantly. I understand that this isn't Obama's fault, as these things have been around for awhile.

I face the same issues that most other consumer driven businesses are facing. A lack of expendable income flowing through the economy. This sets the stage for an argument of a liquidity trap. However, I don't know if Keynesian economics are the solution. I lean towards no, because I think those practices are what got us in to the meltdown of 2008.

The only reason I may sway towards Romney (and I grant that it's not very strong since Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth); is because Obama has literally no private business experience. I've taken more market risk than he has in my short 27years on this planet. He also panders to the entitlement crowd about sharing prosperity rather than building it yourself.

This is all moot, because I'm probably not going to vote at all. I am disenfranchised with American politics. Just tell me the rules and the lay of the land, and I'll figure out a way to thrive.

10/18/2012 11:05:54 AM

Quote :

" He also panders to the entitlement crowd about sharing prosperity rather than building it yourself."

panders in some speeches, maybe, but not by any actions.

10/18/2012 11:20:33 AM

Quote :

"Businesses are designed to turn profits, if you have unnecessary costs they are going to be cut or the business will fail... Costs go down, profits go up."

Right, this is why economic theories predict that profits in capitalistic economies always increase monotonically over time.

10/18/2012 12:03:05 PM

Except the problem we need to solve is not "not enough efficient business happening" it's "too many fucking unemployed and poor people."

That's always the missing part of the equation from free market people. We should just let business reach whatever parity it needs to given demand. Pay no attention to the millions of people who will starve to death or turn to crime.

[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2012 12:07:53 PM

Quote :

"If Mitt's plan is to crony it up and give huge back door deals to his plutocratic buddies, at the expense of the middle class, then I am absolutely against it."

okay, then you should be absolutely against mitt romney.

10/18/2012 1:04:05 PM

There is this illusion that because he is a genious in buisness that he will know how to grow an economy.

[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM. Reason : simplufyed]

10/18/2012 1:11:32 PM

Very credible in NC. Pretty close to solid Romney at this point.

His base can be found eating deep fried fudge at the fairgrounds.

10/18/2012 1:19:05 PM

Quote :

"That's always the missing part of the equation from free market people. We should just let business reach whatever parity it needs to given demand. Pay no attention to the millions of people who will starve to death or turn to crime."

You are asking for a solution that is practically impossible to implement on the scale of the USA. Our country is massive, both in population and land mass. To build a state run system that runs at peak efficiency based on nothing but altruism and the labor of the productive class is not realistic.

Should we discard the meek and starving? No, a social safety net is a great thing to have in a modern society. However, where do we draw the line and say: "Ok, you made your "fair share", now we get to take the rest and distribute it as we see fit"? What are the implications of doing this on industry, innovation, and motivation?



[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ;]

10/18/2012 1:28:13 PM

Quote :

"There is this illusion that because he is a genious in buisness that he will know how to grow an economy. "

and a guy who has only ever worked for government institutions does?

10/18/2012 1:29:26 PM

The difference is that it's not his platform, whereas that seems to be all Romney has and you are a fool to believe it.

10/18/2012 1:39:08 PM

Quote :

"However, where do we draw the line and say: "Ok, you made your "fair share", now we get to take the rest and distribute it as we see fit"? What are the implications of doing this on industry, innovation, and motivation?"

That it wouldn't be as profitable as in a fantasy land with as little rules as Somalia but the consumer demand of the US.

10/18/2012 1:52:01 PM

"Government doesn't create jobs!"

*increases defense spending by $2T*

10/18/2012 2:07:06 PM

Are you really comparing the free market of Somalia to the what a free market in the USA would be like?

If that's the game you would like to play... Then I suppose yu want to have a socialist USA like the USSR? Or maybe we can move towards a regime like North Korea?

10/18/2012 2:33:08 PM

Quote :

"However, where do we draw the line and say: "Ok, you made your "fair share", now we get to take the rest and distribute it as we see fit"? What are the implications of doing this on industry, innovation, and motivation?"

The idea of capitalism is that people pool their money to do stuff, so if you just flagrantly outlawed being rich, it wouldn't obviously preclude the innovation and motivation you mention.

I mean, you used the phrase "fair share" as if it applied to companies. It doesn't and it never has. It applies to individuals.

10/18/2012 2:47:03 PM

I think that Mattletters has all the reason to be an Obama supporter, but can't because of years of schoolage under gop dogma.

10/18/2012 2:57:18 PM

Quote :

"The idea of capitalism is that people pool their money to do stuff, so if you just flagrantly outlawed being rich, it wouldn't obviously preclude the innovation and motivation you mention."

Are you just making definitions up now?

Capitalism:an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

Are you really saying that if you put a cap on how much someone can earn, that their incentive and motivation for innovation and success would not be affected? In other words, you think people would still be willing to take a same level of risk, if the reward is limited or reduced?

Quote :

"I mean, you used the phrase "fair share" as if it applied to companies. It doesn't and it never has. It applies to individuals."

Let me re-ask this question: If you taxed 100% of corporate profits, do you think the motivation to innovate would still exist or even stay at the same level?

And lets also keep in mind, that even if you did tax everyone and every corporation at 100% we still would not put much of a dent in our deficit.

Quote :

"I think that Mattletters has all the reason to be an Obama supporter, but can't because of years of schoolage under gop dogma."

I am not republican. However, I do not deny that I was raised in a conservative, military household.

10/18/2012 3:11:51 PM

Quote :

""Government doesn't create jobs!" *increases defense spending by $2T*"

10/18/2012 3:14:18 PM

Quote :

"Are you really comparing the free market of Somalia to the what a free market in the USA would be like?"

I'm comparing the regulations of Somalia to what some free-market philosophers would like. It was hyperbole somewhat.

[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2012 3:20:31 PM

I assuming you are hyperbolizing what many anarcho-capitalist want.

However, you are leaving out the foundational tenant that every individual is free from force, fraud, and coercion. That is definitely not the case in Somolia.

10/18/2012 3:25:38 PM

It's not the case anywhere

10/18/2012 3:28:42 PM

It's not even a possible case. "free from fraud" and "free from force/coercion" are incompatible. How do you keep people from defrauding one another without coercion?

10/18/2012 3:39:56 PM

Quote :

"Let me re-ask this question: If you taxed 100% of corporate profits, do you think the motivation to innovate would still exist or even stay at the same level?"

Let me make it very very simple. The answer to your question:
If the investors have other options - YES
If the investors don't have other options - NO

I hope that helps. I'm sure you have the common argument against the 35% corporate tax rate. The actual argument is that raising the tax over that will cause the companies to incorporate in other nations. Now, it should be said that relocating to another country isn't necessarily an option. They would have to move the money, for instance. Generally, in the United States, you can't just move any amount of money you want to wherever you want. Yes, this applies even if it's your own money. Transactions are monitored, the banks are an open book to the Feds.

You know that 50% of US companies are incorporated in Delaware, right? Well, that's because Delaware was generous to the people making the decisions. Nobody, however, thinks that we can just replicate that model on a national level and have the companies rush in, in large part because there is a finite number of companies out there. Yet, this is the type of flawed logic you're arguing with. Now, on to the individual...

Quote :

"Are you really saying that if you put a cap on how much someone can earn, that their incentive and motivation for innovation and success would not be affected? In other words, you think people would still be willing to take a same level of risk, if the reward is limited or reduced?"

A simple index fund can eliminate investment-specific risk, exposing the holder only to full economic cycle related volatility. So bam, risk is eliminated unless you have some other argument.

Perhaps you want to argue that savings rate would change, which is a completely different concept from risk. Reward from savings isn't diminished at all, since we're discussing a cap.

10/18/2012 3:42:04 PM

Quote :

"In other words, you think people would still be willing to take a same level of risk, if the reward is limited or reduced?"

I'll point out that a decent amount of the professors at our university leave a decent amount of money on the table and yet still manage to make revolutionary breakthroughs of all kinds.

Not everyone is driven by money.

10/18/2012 3:43:04 PM

Actually, there is a reasonable case that a cap on income wouldn't have affected the wealth of Bill Gates at all. Probably 99% of his wealth was unrealized gains, and that could possibly be transferred to a non-profit without incurring tax.

10/18/2012 3:48:26 PM

Quote :

"It's not even a possible case. "free from fraud" and "free from force/coercion" are incompatible. How do you keep people from defrauding one another without coercion?"

This philosophy operates under the condition that force can only be used to prevent force, fraud, and coercion.

Quote :

"I hope that helps. I'm sure you have the common argument against the 35% corporate tax rate. The actual argument is that raising the tax over that will cause the companies to incorporate in other nations. Now, it should be said that relocating to another country isn't necessarily an option. They would have to move the money, for instance. Generally, in the United States, you can't just move any amount of money you want to wherever you want. Yes, this applies even if it's your own money. Transactions are monitored, the banks are an open book to the Feds. You know that 50% of US companies are incorporated in Delaware, right? Well, that's because Delaware was generous to the people making the decisions. Nobody, however, thinks that we can just replicate that model on a national level and have the companies rush in, in large part because there is a finite number of companies out there. Yet, this is the type of flawed logic you're arguing with. Now, on to the individual..."

I don't really see how any of this refutes what I've said.

Quote :

"A simple index fund can eliminate investment-specific risk, exposing the holder only to full economic cycle related volatility. So bam, risk is eliminated unless you have some other argument. Perhaps you want to argue that savings rate would change, which is a completely different concept from risk. Reward from savings isn't diminished at all, since we're discussing a cap."

What the hell are you talking about? Index funds are low risk, and low return. You don't see people getting rich and wealthy off index funds.

How eager would you be to risk your livelihood on a business if once you are profitable, the government swoops in and takes half of what you've earned? Would you put all your time and money continually in to index funds?

Quote :

"Actually, there is a reasonable case that a cap on income wouldn't have affected the wealth of Bill Gates at all. Probably 99% of his wealth was unrealized gains, and that could possibly be transferred to a non-profit without incurring tax."

Yes, lets keep discussing outliers. We can learn a lot of practical knowledge from them
[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 5:39 PM. Reason : removed superlatives added words]

[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 5:40 PM. Reason : words]

10/18/2012 5:34:30 PM

Quote :

" I'll point out that a decent amount of the professors at our university leave a decent amount of money on the table and yet still manage to make revolutionary breakthroughs of all kinds. Not everyone is driven by money."

wat?

Every professor I've known was constantly searching for funding. The ones who did good research generally got more funding.

10/18/2012 6:03:07 PM

Funding for their programs, not funding for their bank accounts.


Obviously everyone would prefer making more money to less money all things being equal, but his point was is that many of these professors could make much more money in the private sector but choose not to.

[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 6:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2012 6:07:36 PM

Valid point and a good one. But by no means are professors "poor". Not only do they get a pretty bitchin tenured salary, they get cuts from federal funding to just pocket AND consulting gigs that pay big down the road.

If you sat down with my advisor for 15 minutes, pinky ring and all, you'd think he was a fortune 500 CEO.



[Edited on October 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM. Reason : j]

10/18/2012 7:17:31 PM

Quote :

"What the hell are you talking about? Index funds are low risk, and low return. You don't see people getting rich and wealthy off index funds."

As opposed to what other stock market strategy? Studies have again and again showed that simply buying into a broad based index fund gets a higher return than what most people get. This is to be expected because on average the best you could expect is equal performance, and then you add on other fees for broker/mutual fund/whatever fees.

Perhaps in your distorted rhetoric, somehow the stock market itself is a low risk and low return vehicle.

Quote :

"How eager would you be to risk your livelihood on a business if once you are profitable, the government swoops in and takes half of what you've earned? Would you put all your time and money continually in to index funds?"

Invest in a business, as opposed to what?

Quote :

"Yes, lets keep discussing outliers."

We were talking about a cap. The 400 richest people in the nation own $1.7 Trillion. Outliers of in terms of number of individuals doesn't result in an outlier in terms of dollar amount. But then again, you've resisted every attempt of mine to ask you about economic alternatives to investment, so I don't have much hope of you taking math and logic into consideration at this point.

10/18/2012 8:19:45 PM

You took my topic of the government stifling entrepreneurship and innovation through taxation and regulation and started talking about investing strategies. We are on different pages.

Perhaps you are focusing on capital gains only? I don't know, but you took a tangent ran with it, and I don't have a clue. Now its ad hominem time from ya, and im done.

10/18/2012 9:17:17 PM

Quote :

"You took my topic of the government stifling entrepreneurship and innovation through taxation and regulation "

If someone doesn't start a business or innovate because taxation and regulation, what do they do instead?

10/18/2012 9:18:38 PM