Taxes; National Debt; Balanced Budget; and the diff Between the 1% and .1% - Winter Thread

Discussion in 'The Tiki Bar' started by Boat Guy, Feb 3, 2019.

  1. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    Both of your guys points are valid....

    I do think, when people have an option, and all things being equal, they will use legal means to reduce their taxes.... So, high income earners leaving NY or other high tax states is understandable... Leaving the country is a huge difference...I'm not saying you can't find other safe, nice, places to live in the world, but most are not going to flee the country.

    Even if they did, to MM's point, I really don't think you can tackle this with income tax. In fact, if you look at my previous posts, I've cautioned you that I'm not talking about earners and I rarely bring up income...It's not an income issue to me. Yes, that can fluctuate...What doesn't fluctuate as much are assets... I said wealth, as in assets, not incomes... Look at the balance sheets, not the income statements....

    To me, from a discussion standpoint, would be an asset tax....The ultra high wealth doesn't need nor typically have traditional income from working.... It's capital gains and assets.
     
  2. Blueone

    Blueone Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Jan 24, 2007
    Lake Erie, Ohio
    2004 420 Sundancer
    Cummins 6CTA 450's
    Cuomo also blamed the stock market. He said because of the drop at the end of the year brokers didn't get huge bonus's where a lot of tax revenue comes from...
     
  3. FootballFan

    FootballFan Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Jun 20, 2012
    Florida
    Marquis 59
    MTU Series 60
    I read the articles.

    What about the .001 % of a hundred years ago?

    Couple of observations. Well endless reading about my observations.

    First article was focused on inequity of capital gains taxation vs ordinary income.

    Second article presented facts about individuals in the .01 category, their net worth and how the tax system worked for or against them.

    Please do not take this the wrong way – not critical of you posting the articles - but I thought they were both shallow articles to support a political perspective.

    Call me predisposed – or blinders, or “pig headed”. Just my thoughts.

    My personal opinions, not intending this to be a “world according to footballfan”. Bored sitting in a hotel room. The thoughts below are not a lecture – rather I am sharing my thought process and why I reach the conclusions I do. Will warn you in advance – economist by formal education, ardent student of history for enjoyment. Anytime an economist starts to talk, gets boring real quick – don’t say you were not warned.

    Combine an economist, with a history nut, and a few scotch’s from the mini bar – this is going to be a long read.

    The first premise to consider is that we are headed into an economic apocalypse due to the disparities between the haves and have nots.

    I do not agree, disparities are much less than they were 100 years ago. When you consider the effect of federal taxation during the time of wealth accumulation due to a structural change in the economic structure – even further validates the point of – we are not in a problem area due to wealth distribution.

    [granted there is a media issue which does change the rules of history]

    Let’s back up and look at history – much deeper history that the second article considered. I believe the timeframe was 1970’s as the base line in the second article.

    Over time the driver of the economies has shifted. An additional factor is who is leading (countries around the world) the economy, or the shift. For the first 100-130 years of our country we were driven by an agrarian based economy. US did not establish that economy, was a follower.

    The next shift occurred from agrarian based economy to an industrial driven economy. Big change occurred here in the political arena. In the agrarian economy the US was a follower.

    When the shift occurred to the industrial driven economy, the US was still a follower. But the US as a follower injected innovation. In other words it wasn’t our idea, we followed Great Britain into the industrial revolution, but we did it better through our innovation.

    When the industrial revolution occurred – the shift of the economy, Great Britain was the key currency of the world. Economic shifts such as this occur over a 20-30 year time frame. By the completion of the economic shift from agrarian to industrial – the US was starting to emerge with the dollar as the key currency.

    [ it gets deeper as you consider the British Empire and its world-wide control of lands and people’s – then the subsequent dissolution. Significant factor, but trying to keep this short]

    The depression (worldwide) of the 30’s and the resulting world war ( WW2 – or as some would say the continuation of WW1) slowed the conversion of the key currency – went into a state of flux (similar to today). At the conclusion of WW2 – the dollar was the key currency and the US was established as the clear leader, no longer a follower.

    Somewhere in the 90’s another economic shift started to occur. Movement from an industrial based economy to an information-based economy. The hedge fund managers mention in the article are a product of an information-based economy.

    Anytime this type of shift occurs in the economy there are opportunities for massive wealth accumulation. Those individuals who are on the leading edge tend to do very well. What we don’t always think about are the much larger number of failures. The people who thought they were on the leading edge, but totally missed it. They failed. For every Bill Gates there are a 100 failures. Failure not as a software company, but failure because they were too early or too late.

    In the late 1800’s through the early 1900’s this is the era that built the mansions in Newport, Rhode Island. Many of the names you recognize like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, or Carnegie. But there were so many more – like the hedge fund managers that are not prominent names. The railroad owners, the land barons profiting from the largesse of a country expanding.

    This time period of the late 1800’s through the early 1900’s – there was an unprecedented, and unequaled wealth accumulation into a very small number of people. I would refer to this as the .001 percent.

    The disparity was even greater than today. Predominant thought is the concept of the middle class was created and evolved after WWII. In 1900 – you either had a mansion in Newport – or you were struggling economically.

    Now let’s lay another dimension in to the discussion. The concept of the federal government collecting taxes from individuals. When did this start? In the 1912 to 1914 timeframe. Before that there was no individual taxation. Income tax is a little over 100 years old, was not an original concept of the founders of our country.

    [great discussion for another thread about how income tax started}

    What we experienced as a country was a period of wealth accumulation – with no, none, zero taxation during the period of the late 1800’s into the early 1900’s when the last economic structural change occurred.

    Trying to find a conclusion here to this thread.

    Our economy, the world-wide economy is very complex with multiple factors. You cannot pick out 20 years, or 50 years and draw a conclusion.

    Take all the money from the people listed in article 2 – the total of their wealth will not make a dent in 1-year deficit of the US.

    The answer does not lie in grabbing the money of those people who are on the list.

    No, we are not headed to economic apocalypse because people have accumulated wealth. Wealth distribution is not an issue, it is a result of a country founded on capitalism.

    The problem is as a country – we spend more money than we take in. We have to balance the budget. We have to control spending.

    So many tangents I could go down, but this post is huge.

    Anyway – ramblings for what is worth of a scotch drinking economist who loves studying history.
     
  4. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    It is late, I grant you... But, this is the type of post I was trying to provoke... Appreciate your post... Where are you in FL? It would be an interesting discussion over cocktails....

    To your point re deficit, see my post in the tax thread... I think we are more aligned philosophically than you might think...

    I'm crashing and will re-read your post tomorrow.
     
  5. Blueone

    Blueone Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Jan 24, 2007
    Lake Erie, Ohio
    2004 420 Sundancer
    Cummins 6CTA 450's
    Yikes... You need to break this into chapters
     
    MonacoMike likes this.
  6. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    That is a read for tomorrow...

    MM
     
  7. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    I’ll be 65 in June and my wife will be 62 next month. Had you asked us a year ago we would have said we will likely stay in NY forever.
    That’s changed now. We’re starting to consider options.
    We had kids later. Our daughter is graduating from college this year, and our son is a freshman.
    We want to get a sense of what they’ll be doing and where they will settle.
    It’s doubtful that we’re heading too far south since my wife isn’t really a summer or beach person.
    But we’re starting to think of someplace like Delaware. While not an absolute perfect tax situation, it’s much better than here in NY and close enough to drive if the kids stay in this region.
    We also like big cities so it will leave us close enough for outings or weekends in NYC, Philly, and DC.
     
  8. Blueone

    Blueone Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Jan 24, 2007
    Lake Erie, Ohio
    2004 420 Sundancer
    Cummins 6CTA 450's
    I lived just north of Philly in Allentown for 14 years. We had a lot of neighbors that would commute into NY City. Cost of living was a lot lower which drew them to that area. My favorite area is Annapolis and the Chesapeake for boating... not the cheapest area though.
     
  9. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    A quick search of new homes in the area led me to a model that is larger than the one I live in for more than 200k less than what I could sell my house for. Bigger home, less taxes, 8 minutes to a pretty nice looking Marina off the C&D canal, and 200k change back in my pocket.
    Tempting!
    Screw Cuomo!
     
    WV 320 Dancer and Blueone like this.
  10. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    FF - I reread your post and have a question... Did you read the links in my post #5 or just post #1? The reason I ask is post #5 was a bit more focused on what I'm addressing...

    Perhaps you might still consider it data manipulated to fit a narrative.... None-the-less, if you do have a cocktail from the mini-bar and read them, I'd be interested in your thoughts....

    Now, to your points, while I found your points interesting and appreciate your response...In fairness, I found your position a bit stale....I don't mean to offend...In fact I hope you're not...I'm more trying to provoke you to think out of a tried and tested narrative... In other words, I've heard your words many times before from dusty, old-school, economists....Got to think out of the box here.

    I am lobbing the conversation back in your court in hopes that you will read the links in #5 and perhaps reflect a bit before your predefined position is posted....

    In response to your thoughts on an "Apocalypse" due to class war / financial crisis...I would say I'm less concerned about an internal apocalypse than an external apocalypse. With all the foreign affairs related issues today, I'm more concerned about the USD to the world, than a class war...

    Though, the strength of our nation relies on our monetary strength... I posted in the Taxes thread a similar position to yours regarding the deficit and national debt...

    But in this thread I was trying to get a dialog on the runaway wealth curve at the ultra wealth... In fact, just for fun, why don't you take the contrarian position and role-play for a second to make my argument for me.... In debate class you need to argue both positions, can you do that? Can you make a case, looking at the data that the .01% wealth escalation is unsustainable?

    I've brought up what I think is an issue for discussion, and my lightly formed opinion...Ok, if I've recognized a problem, what's the solution?

    I often hear "raise the 90% up"... or something similar...But that's easier said than done...Because things like minimum wage increases etc. are simply to placate the unsophisticated...Yes, it makes the low class happy and it makes for politicians patting themselves on the back. But, we know all we are doing is raising inflation...We can't raise one class in a bubble so the % will stay the same or more likely actually work against the desired objective...Rising wages typically just follows with inflation...I'm actually not a fan of inflation at all...The only argument I can make for it is it devalues the national debt.

    My armchair thoughts are three-fold...

    1. A federal asset tax (unavoidable no matter where you live)
    2. A tiered Cap Gains tax starting over $1M
    3. A CEO or exec comp. package cap to some arbitrary number of ave. wages of employees... I'll take a stab at 50x

    This isn't meant to penalize anyone... I want to see growth at the top and rewards for the deserving...I am a true capitalist... Though, I can recognize when a gov't has been remiss in containing the extremes and can see the unsustainable writing on the wall...

    Tear me apart...

    ====Adding====

    Obligatory graph for those that like to look at pictures. :)

    ultra wealth.png
     
  11. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    682
    Sep 12, 2009
    IL
    281
    V8
    I am going the throw this back at you. Why, in a free capitalist society, should I care about how much wealth Bill Gates et. al. have? Because some politician or talking head on TV tells me to?

    That assumes wealth is a fixed commodity. If Bill Gates wins then I loose. That's just not true. I can take Bill's invention and generate wealth for myself and others. And they can take what I produce and generate wealth from themselves. You don't have to take from the top 1% to better the bottom 99%. Not everyone can be a billionaire. But maybe I'm just fine being a $100,000aire.
     
  12. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    1. A "Federal asset tax" is a complete non starter. You work your whole life to build and save and now want to give politicians a door to access your assets that you ALREADY paid the tax on. I and most freedom loving people will fight that. It will never stop with the super wealthy, we have already established that the super wealthy do not have enough to fix government, so by necessity it will creep down to your 401k.

    2. The super wealthy can be mobile, they will put their money in the best spots for them, we have to keep capital gains low to keep the money in flow for our economy.

    3. So a CEO that grows a company or makes it profitable should get the fruits of their work taken from them because some think they make to much? Even though they made that money? (I know, insert story of golden parachute CEO's that are undeserving.)

    I recall that when Peyton Manning was getting big contracts people would say "crazy money to throw a ball". He, nor any ball player, gets paid to throw a ball, they get paid by the interest they create that translates to sales. The team owner likewise gets paid for assembling the team as a whole. That applies across the board in business, no matter where you work you should be getting paid what the market will bear. We tax the fruit of that labor but do not take your assets. Once we start taxing assets if one no longer has the income to pay we just keep taking until it is gone?

    MM
     
  13. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    We have generally had pretty good economies throughout all the years the wealthy have done well by my thinking.

    MM
     
  14. Woody

    Woody Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Nov 20, 2007
    N. Wisconsin/Lk Superior
    2005 420DA
    Cummins 6CTA8.3
    Were you born in the city? I'm the opposite, don't like them, to many people, not enough room.
     
    MonacoMike likes this.
  15. Woody

    Woody Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Nov 20, 2007
    N. Wisconsin/Lk Superior
    2005 420DA
    Cummins 6CTA8.3
    Makes me think of my part of the state. Wilderness opened up to log. One fellow bought 150-200sqmi of timberland. He built the town, owned everything, you worked for him, you bought everything you needed from him, he even issued his own 'money'. He did well, the rest survived.
     
  16. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    Yes. Moved to the burbs at 40. Not a real fan of the suburbs. The perfect world would be a small apartment in the city and a house someplace a bit more scenic than a suburb.
     
  17. FootballFan

    FootballFan Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Jun 20, 2012
    Florida
    Marquis 59
    MTU Series 60
    I have no problem with you finding my posting stale, no offense taken. I would offer that maybe you should read it again. It is primarily about the history of what has transpired. Takes a writer more creative than me to make history not seem stale - but there wasn't any discussion of economics in that posting. Just replaying some facts.

    We could talk about what impact a bunch of economic theories and such - but that's not the point I am trying to make.

    I did read the link in message 5.

    Here is where I tend to be very discerning.

    I got that there were two points being intertwined. Wealth accumulation and non-.01% changes in things like debt ratios, savings, etc.

    What is the connection between the two? The author slams them together without a solid bridge.

    How is the wealth of the .01% impacting the middle class debt load?

    All three links contain very good data, but then the common theme is building a strawman that links the data together. It is the strawman that I don't understand or follow.

    There is a point that is not considered.

    The articles do a good job of explaining the facts today regarding wealth distribution.

    My point - compare wealth distribution today to 100+ years ago. I maintain it was much more disparate 100+ years ago than it is today. That's where I added the term .001 % - a smaller group than the .01 %.

    I just struggle with the logic that middle class is impacted by .01% today. That changes to reduce the wealth of the .01% would have any material impact on the middle class or the deficits of the government. (this is based on math - the amounts that are involved)

    Economic Theory starts here:

    There is an old joke that there is never an economist who was physically challenged by not having both arms. Because every economist always explains a theory that ends with "but on the other hand". (no disrespect intended to anyone who is physically challenged, just replaying an old joke that I hope does not offend anyone).

    So back to theory, there are many who believe that if you were to remove the capital from the economy that is provided by the .01%, the burden of investment in our economy would fall to the investor of last resort - the Federal government.

    This would indicate that removing the wealth of the .01% would actually hurt the middle class and worsen the debt issues of the Government.
     
  18. mwph

    mwph Active Member

    Jul 8, 2008
    Lake Guntersville, Tennessee River, Alabama
    1998 250 DA
    7.4L, B3
    The simplicity of this post is great. Although it does not address specifics, it does provide the Genesis to the ONLY way to clean up the mess. We can throw numbers around all day long, we can debate what is fair, we can argue how it got so far out of control. But the situation can not be rectified until we address the root of the problem. Which is what the above post does.
     
  19. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    Who here thinks anyone would allow their benefit to shrink to reduce deficits and debt? We are hurtling toward the abyss and no one will stop it. The previous economic blips are nothing compared to what is coming, just no one knows how long we can keep the house of cards standing. But when it blows over, it will fall all the way to the bottom.

    It will likely doom civilization. What would happen in a world running on high tech if the world economy and the west fall apart?

    MM
     
    FootballFan likes this.
  20. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    I would... Though, I feel I'm alone

    FF thanks for the reply, I guess I can't make you see the connection...perhaps time will tell...As I extrapolate out the graph it doesn't look good to me...

    But, I was the guy who a year before the housing crisis was concerned about what I was seeing and everyone was telling me the economists know what they are doing.... Never made sense how people were buying homes with high valuations and incomes weren't going up... I was actually looking forward to the correction and under-estimated the amount the Gov't would step in artificially prop it up...Now, again, we have a HPI that is higher than the boom...This time, with inflation, it might re-stabilize but that will cause other issues....no one seems to want to talk about Blackstone being the largest holder of residential properties.

    The 1% thinks they're doing well, that's all that matters...
     

Share This Page

Show Sidebar