KWM: I will be doing additional articles on the parallels of 1937 as the next few months unfold. In once of them I will put a chart of the Dow Jones Industrials in 1937; as well as some of the economic data. You never see this data in the mainstream media, because they would be so apoplectic at Roosevelt having caused a faster crash than Hoover (and a swifter recession as well).
Some SA writers feel the next four years will be a "second jimmy carter term." I actually am quite optimistic that budget cuts will be the vast majority of the cliff. Once we get over the short term effects, I see full speed ahead in future years propelled by cheaper natural gas/fossil fuels and Biotechnology.
I am not a balanced budget guy. I believe in keeping the annual budget deficit as % of gdp at levels far lower than it is now. I believe in keep the national DEBT ( a "balance sheet item" ) at levels lower than it is now, as well.
==>In the post-WWII era corporate CEOs made 10-25 times the average worker income. Now it's about 350 timeS<=======
Again, there are too simple comments I have to make.
(1) Your suffering from a severe case of financial envy. You could reduce that ratio by increasing the wages of workers and there is a simple way to do that.....and that is...
(2) start your own business and pay your employees as you see fit.
Your letter does not prove your point, it proves MINE. Just as convenience stores now do 80% of their business selling lottery tickets (while the states make gambling illegal) to senior citizens collecting Social Security, dozens of organizations and corporations line up at the public hog trough to get their share of the slop. WHY SHOULDN'T they? They are FORCED to pay taxes...if you are forced to pay, you may as well play.
Next we get the 'dysfunctional meme.' Well, who has written the tax code over the years? Who have handed out goodies in the form of accelerated depreciation, writeoffs and subsidies? Thats the whole reason why politicians WANT HIGH MARGINAL rates...so that the turn around and offer candy to their constituents in the form of exemptions and exclusions. Simplifying the tax code used to be a centerpiece of Republican economic policy. It has been destroyed by RINOs Dole, Bush, McCain and now Romney.
What Romney pays in taxes, to be blunt, is NONE OF MY BUSINESS, or yours. But if you must, look at his line for charitable contributions. I'll bet he gives more to charity in a YEAR than you will in a lifetime. Case closed.
===> think people who make 2.3 million today can pay a higher marginal rate than people making 50K <=====
And so the basis of your argument is revealed: if we would just learn to be more generous with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, our problems would be solved.
When I earn an extra dollar I keep 85% of it. I see no reason why a rich person should not receive the same compensation for their effort. There is no MORAL basis for a progressive income tax. There is the cold, callus political calculus you use, and only that: if we don't soak the rich, we wouldn't be able to be so generous with our social programs.
Humble: I have had fun following politics from the time I was an 11 year old twit lying on the floor in front of the TV in 1964 watching Goldwater get wiped out by Lyndon Johnson. After that, my mummy and daddy, Roosevelt democrats, explained why they didn't think someone like Barry should be Prezident.
The founding fathers knew EXACTLY the type of man (or woman) who would enter politics and designed a very robust federal system and balance of powers--- EUROPEAN CONCEPTS, back in the days when Europe actually meant something---in order for the system to endure. We are doing JUST FINE in my opinion. The Republicans in the house, in conjunction with their colleagues in the Senate and a few Democrat senators who come from Red states, have stopped numerous Obama initiatives in their tracks. That is exactly their job. I don't care if some bedwetters at CNN don't like it, do you?
Frankenstorm 'The Not-So-Black Swan': Climate As The New Risk Variable [View article]
===>If you're a Republican, there's a 75% chance that you disbelieve the scientific evidence behind the concerns about climate change. If you're a Democrat, a 75% chance that you accept that evidence<===
If you are a Republican, there is a 75% chance you'll end up paying some "globalwarmingism based tax" that will disappear into the United Nations Miasma.
If you are a Democrat there is a 75% chance you'll end up with a "globalwarmingism rebate" for taking an ALREADY subsidized bus, train, or subway.
A hypothesis that uses as proof more rain, more snow, more drought, more heat waves, more cold waves, melting ice, thicker ice, bluer sky, hazy sky, ad infinitum seems impervious to falsifiability. OOps..i forget...they DID manage to falsify some data a few years ago.
If Iraq Can Triple Production, Oil Will Only Be $215 In 2035 [View article]
"the average IEA crude oil import price rises to $125/barrel (in year-2011 dollars) in 2035 (over $215/barrel in nominal terms)."
Thats about a 2.4% compounded annual rate of increase in price. At the same time we are decreasing oil consumption as a % of GDP about 2% annually. Looks very doable to me.
I doubt it. If tonight Reid, McConnell, & Obama stood on a podium announcing an agreement had been reached to cut spending growth (which is what cuts are..there is never any real REDUCTIONS in spending) in HALF for the next ten years, the Dow Jones Industrials would open at 15,000 and never look back.
It would be simple to do. Just require that any budget increase greater than 3% must pass by a 2/3rds majority in both houses. Problem solved.
Well don't forget you must focus on the INVESTMENT implications. And everything DOES...from global warming to taxes to whatever. Try and make the articles shorter (they HAVE been getting shorter lately) and more focused.
I have a blast submitting SA articles, but i have these weird grammatical and diacritical quirks which come from reading Harry Potter and similar literature. I think I drive the editors batty.
Thanks HJ. Nothing is more demagogued than capital gains taxes. If there was just an x% rate on capital gains, the net revenue effect would be ZERO, since John Doe's gain is Jane Doe's loss.
That didn't sit well with some politicians of the era, so next they said you must pay taxes on GAINS immediately, but can only write off losses at a rate of $3000 a year.
This was so ridiculous on its face that they in turn made the capital gains rate LOWER than tax on ordinary income. This looks unfair and pro-rich, since the previous paragraph is never made clear as part of the deal.
Bill Clinton's balanced budget was during a republican congress entirely devoted to slow growth in spending. Federal spending as a % of GDP fell steadily from 1983 to 1998.
Well debt is hardly an enemy if the funds are used to create wealth and income to meet the interest payments. Most coporations are doing exactly that; whereas the government is not. So actually we should move funds FROM the wasteful government and TO productive corporations, not the other way around.
I agree it should have been much more of an issue this past fall. But I also wish (on a completely different topic) that we had spent more time on foreign policy issues like Drone warfare, Arab Spring, Focusing on Asia, etc. Hopefully we'll turn to those issues soon.
I agree I am naive. That doesn't make my arguments wrong, it is just that they are highly unlikely to be followed. :) It is naive to expect people to obey the speed limit, but you can still set an example in cases where it would be really helpful.
You are spot on about the concerns of the wealthy. No way extra revenue would not lead to additional spending. I take their "willing to pay more" with a grain of salt.
50% of Americans pay no federal tax AT ALL but they voted in droves last week for policies which will tax others so they will get all kinds of goodies. Whatever clause of the constitution is used to put an end to this insanity---my favorite is the 2nd amendment---the sooner it is done, the better and easier it will be.
Mike thats a crazy letter. You'd be better to take a few of those paragraphs, write entire articles focused on them and the investment implications, and send em off to Seeking Alpha!
1937 first: the reason why i say tax increases would be harmful, and spending cuts on balance beneficial, is because these actions shift money 'away from' category IV spending and toward catgeory I. Thus incentives to economize and satisfy, are both enhanced.
Furthermore, everyone blames the 1937 debacle on SPENDING CUTS...the tax increases are NEVER MENTIONED, unless by articles like mine.
Todays' cliff: I am sure any deal will be less than perfect. But the closer we get to spending cuts being 100% of the package, the better I feel it will be, for the same reasons outlined above.
Taxing the 'rich' is demagoguery and Obama should be called on it. Years ago Senator Mitchell from Maine put a surtax on yacht purchases..obviously with the intent of soaking "rich" yacht owners. He wiped out the boat buidling and maintenance industry in maine, mostly small business entrepreurs and, while perhaps well off, certainly not RICH by any stretch of the imagination.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
Some SA writers feel the next four years will be a "second jimmy carter term." I actually am quite optimistic that budget cuts will be the vast majority of the cliff. Once we get over the short term effects, I see full speed ahead in future years propelled by cheaper natural gas/fossil fuels and Biotechnology.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
Again, there are too simple comments I have to make.
(1) Your suffering from a severe case of financial envy. You could reduce that ratio by increasing the wages of workers and there is a simple way to do that.....and that is...
(2) start your own business and pay your employees as you see fit.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
Next we get the 'dysfunctional meme.' Well, who has written the tax code over the years? Who have handed out goodies in the form of accelerated depreciation, writeoffs and subsidies? Thats the whole reason why politicians WANT HIGH MARGINAL rates...so that the turn around and offer candy to their constituents in the form of exemptions and exclusions. Simplifying the tax code used to be a centerpiece of Republican economic policy. It has been destroyed by RINOs Dole, Bush, McCain and now Romney.
What Romney pays in taxes, to be blunt, is NONE OF MY BUSINESS, or yours. But if you must, look at his line for charitable contributions. I'll bet he gives more to charity in a YEAR than you will in a lifetime. Case closed.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
And so the basis of your argument is revealed: if we would just learn to be more generous with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, our problems would be solved.
When I earn an extra dollar I keep 85% of it. I see no reason why a rich person should not receive the same compensation for their effort. There is no MORAL basis for a progressive income tax. There is the cold, callus political calculus you use, and only that: if we don't soak the rich, we wouldn't be able to be so generous with our social programs.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
The founding fathers knew EXACTLY the type of man (or woman) who would enter politics and designed a very robust federal system and balance of powers--- EUROPEAN CONCEPTS, back in the days when Europe actually meant something---in order for the system to endure. We are doing JUST FINE in my opinion. The Republicans in the house, in conjunction with their colleagues in the Senate and a few Democrat senators who come from Red states, have stopped numerous Obama initiatives in their tracks. That is exactly their job. I don't care if some bedwetters at CNN don't like it, do you?
Frankenstorm 'The Not-So-Black Swan': Climate As The New Risk Variable [View article]
If you are a Republican, there is a 75% chance you'll end up paying some "globalwarmingism based tax" that will disappear into the United Nations Miasma.
If you are a Democrat there is a 75% chance you'll end up with a "globalwarmingism rebate" for taking an ALREADY subsidized bus, train, or subway.
A hypothesis that uses as proof more rain, more snow, more drought, more heat waves, more cold waves, melting ice, thicker ice, bluer sky, hazy sky, ad infinitum seems impervious to falsifiability. OOps..i forget...they DID manage to falsify some data a few years ago.
If Iraq Can Triple Production, Oil Will Only Be $215 In 2035 [View article]
Thats about a 2.4% compounded annual rate of increase in price. At the same time we are decreasing oil consumption as a % of GDP about 2% annually. Looks very doable to me.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
It would be simple to do. Just require that any budget increase greater than 3% must pass by a 2/3rds majority in both houses. Problem solved.
Less than 3% would be simple majority as always.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
I have a blast submitting SA articles, but i have these weird grammatical and diacritical quirks which come from reading Harry Potter and similar literature. I think I drive the editors batty.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
That didn't sit well with some politicians of the era, so next they said you must pay taxes on GAINS immediately, but can only write off losses at a rate of $3000 a year.
This was so ridiculous on its face that they in turn made the capital gains rate LOWER than tax on ordinary income. This looks unfair and pro-rich, since the previous paragraph is never made clear as part of the deal.
Bill Clinton's balanced budget was during a republican congress entirely devoted to slow growth in spending. Federal spending as a % of GDP fell steadily from 1983 to 1998.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
I agree it should have been much more of an issue this past fall. But I also wish (on a completely different topic) that we had spent more time on foreign policy issues like Drone warfare, Arab Spring, Focusing on Asia, etc. Hopefully we'll turn to those issues soon.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
You are spot on about the concerns of the wealthy. No way extra revenue would not lead to additional spending. I take their "willing to pay more" with a grain of salt.
50% of Americans pay no federal tax AT ALL but they voted in droves last week for policies which will tax others so they will get all kinds of goodies. Whatever clause of the constitution is used to put an end to this insanity---my favorite is the 2nd amendment---the sooner it is done, the better and easier it will be.
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
The Fiscal Cliff... Of 1937 [View article]
Furthermore, everyone blames the 1937 debacle on SPENDING CUTS...the tax increases are NEVER MENTIONED, unless by articles like mine.
Todays' cliff: I am sure any deal will be less than perfect. But the closer we get to spending cuts being 100% of the package, the better I feel it will be, for the same reasons outlined above.
Taxing the 'rich' is demagoguery and Obama should be called on it. Years ago Senator Mitchell from Maine put a surtax on yacht purchases..obviously with the intent of soaking "rich" yacht owners. He wiped out the boat buidling and maintenance industry in maine, mostly small business entrepreurs and, while perhaps well off, certainly not RICH by any stretch of the imagination.