Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was driving to work today and this occurred to me.

This is the logic behind a lot of corporate and conservative republican statements lately. Because my profit will drop from $640,000 to $610,000 I'm going to stop investing, fire everyone, and close my business. Because that's about the size of the difference in the taxes.

Taxes would have to be a lot higher than proposed to kill investment.

---

And in line with this thought , I stumbled across this tonight

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-warren-buffe...

I don't believe they'll keep stop investing. Because $610,000 is better than $0. And if they do abandon the market, then someone else will come in and take it.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Stop doing math, Mac. It is not fair!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mac,
This is the strangest OP I have read in a long while.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
Mac,
This is the strangest OP I have read in a long while.


The rhetoric around this "fiscal cliff" is starting to get on my nerves. These people mewling like stuck pigs over 3% of their income when they still make what any 12 other people make. Likewise, if the cutoff is at $250k that means the raised taxes would only be for amounts over $300k $250k (tired). So even up to $350k, it would be a 1% tax increase (~3% of 100k that is over the $250k limit- not 3% of the entire $350k).

Downside- we may get a recession. We'll we've had 50 over the last 200 years. We'll live.

Raise the taxes and cut the spending. If they can figure out a way to finesse it, then cool. But if not then don't stay on the same path.

And I'm getting pissy because of work. We were going to be released a little early- not the 2 months they promised us but a couple weeks. Now it looks like that is off and we will have to work until the end of the month. And the reason that is happening is because things are going to hell because of terrible management decisions.

And I'm getting pissy listening to street talk. They are talking about this 3.6% tax increase like the economy is going to stop. Everyone is going to shut down their businesses.

It's clearly hyperboley. How did we survive a mere 12 years ago?
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Where did you get the $640k figure?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Everybody uses hyperbole to make points and try to sway opinion, but when you pull stuff out of you ass that goes against common sense, it's just ridiculous and makes you look like a conniving jack ass. Business officers saying they are going to shut down operations because of Obanacare and/or tax hikes are in that category. Most of those who made the threat pre-election changed their tune post-election and said they would deal with it some other way. Yeah, you think? Next time you cry about government interference (and it might really matter next time, who knows?) I'm not going to take you as seriously. Learn to pick your battles idiots.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
maxo-texas wrote:
And I'm getting pissy because of work.
maxo-texas wrote:
And I'm getting pissy listening to street talk.


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DCAnderson wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
hyperbolyhyperbole


Where is Cranky when you need him?


Hyperbol is just what the contrary Europeans call Hyperball.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
The rhetoric around this "fiscal cliff" is starting to get on my nerves.


Here are the problems with the "rhetoric" - and it is the same one that I had before the election

1) Obama has clearly decided that this is a winning populist move - singling our "the rich" and making them the enemy because they are not paying "their fair share". The fact that the president - who supposedly prides himself on inclusiveness is demagoging a segment of the population is just wrong

2) Obama's claim that he will reduce expenditures at a higher rate than tax increases(I have seen rates from 3 x 1 to 10 x 1) The problem here is that 99% of his focus is on the income generation and 1% on the spending reduction. If there was truly a desire to reduce the rhetoric - he would TRUMPET the idea that I demand that congress look at both - but that is not the tenor of his bully pulpit. Ken - I really want to believe that Obama wants to do this - but his recent speeches call that desire into question.

3) Reid and the House democrats have flatly stated that spending reduction is off the table for the fiscal cliff negotiation. But the GOP are the baddies because they won't repudiate Grovner? Please.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
The rhetoric around this "fiscal cliff" is starting to get on my nerves.


Here are the problems with the "rhetoric" - and it is the same one that I had before the election

1) Obama has clearly decided that this is a winning populist move - singling our "the rich" and making them the enemy because they are not paying "their fair share". The fact that the president - who supposedly prides himself on inclusiveness is demagoging a segment of the population is just wrong

2) Obama's claim that he will reduce expenditures at a higher rate than tax increases(I have seen rates from 3 x 1 to 10 x 1) The problem here is that 99% of his focus is on the income generation and 1% on the spending reduction. If there was truly a desire to reduce the rhetoric - he would TRUMPET the idea that I demand that congress look at both - but that is not the tenor of his bully pulpit. Ken - I really want to believe that Obama wants to do this - but his recent speeches call that desire into question.

3) Reid and the House democrats have flatly stated that spending reduction is off the table for the fiscal cliff negotiation. But the GOP are the baddies because they won't repudiate Grovner? Please.


Chad, the GOP was offered $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases and dismissed it out of hand. How is that ok with you?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DCAnderson wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
hyperbolyhyperbole


Where is Cranky when you need him?


I was busy thumbing his post. I tend to let the typos slide when the person making them is saying something I find worthwhile. (Uh oh, I may have given away too much just then!)
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerry Martin
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
1 Million Shogoths Killed and Counting.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
Mac,
This is the strangest OP I have read in a long while.


Apparently you haven't read any of DWtripps OP's.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Chad, the GOP was offered $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases and dismissed it out of hand. How is that ok with you?


On the face of it - it is not OK. Sounds like a great place to start negotiating. And also remember that Boehner has already conceded that taxes will be going up - so it is not like the GOP has dug their heels in completely.

But from my readings of the deals on the table - is that the tax increases go into law Jan 1st. But the spending cuts are more of a lets discuss the details later - making it waaaaay to easy to pull those back.

[edit] made lay say law
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
$2 in future spending cuts that may or may not materialize for $1 in tax increases now is not wise.


In fact, this is the same trick the Democrats used on Reagan, and no, those spending cuts never did materialize.



Further proof that Reagan was a senile old fuck of a president--no normal Republican would ever fall for such an obvious ploy.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
Where did you get the $640k figure?


I presumed $1,000,000 profits on your investment, a tax rate of 36% now and a restored tax rate of 39.6%.

I'm ignoring the dividend tax rates as I agree they are indeed huge changes (15% to over 40%- I think about 43%?) but I also hear that the reality is they are likely to end up at 20.6% which would not significantly change my dividend investment behavior. (Oh gosh, I got $100,000 dividends, keeping $85,000 and now I keep $79,400. That's it, I'm leaving america and going to cash rather than earn $79,400 a year).

If tax rates are indeed so high on dividends that dividend returns perform much worse than other investments, then it will change behavior. Getting an effective 3% rate of return instead of 5% rate of return would probably do it. But getting an effective 4.5% rate of return instead of 5% rate of return probably wouldn't.


(details on the bush tax cuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
$2 in future spending cuts that may or may not materialize for $1 in tax increases now is not wise.


In fact, this is the same trick the Democrats used on Reagan, and no, those spending cuts never did materialize. "Not wise" is an understatement. Criminally insane is more like it.


I also want the cuts - TODAY. not "in the future".

The federal government could stand to be 5% smaller in every department in 2013. That's "belt tightening" level.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
$2 in future spending cuts that may or may not materialize for $1 in tax increases now is not wise.


In fact, this is the same trick the Democrats used on Reagan, and no, those spending cuts never did materialize. "Not wise" is an understatement. Criminally insane is more like it.


I also want the cuts - TODAY. not "in the future".

The federal government could stand to be 5% smaller in every department in 2013. That's "belt tightening" level.


Agreed. I think the Republicans would gain some public trust by agreeing to the deal and pressuring Democrats to follow through. Their current stance isn't doing them or the country any favors. With all this fiscal cliff stuff and the knee-jerk "why don't Mexicans like us" immigration bills the GOP has suddenly come up with in the news I've heard a lot of congress members interviewed on the radio this week. Every one of them, Democrat or Republican, sounds so smarmy and ridiculous it's given me a renewed hatred for our political system. It's nothing but talking points, petty sniping, and bullshit. Fuck the lot of them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Agreed. I think the Republicans would gain some public trust by agreeing to the deal and pressuring Democrats to follow through. Their current stance isn't doing them or the country any favors. With all this fiscal cliff stuff and the knee-jerk "why don't Mexicans like us" immigration bills the GOP has suddenly come up with in the news I've heard a lot of congress members interviewed on the radio this week. Every one of them, Democrat or Republican, sounds so smarmy and ridiculous it's given me a renewed hatred for our political system. It's nothing but talking points, petty sniping, and bullshit. Fuck the lot of them.


I think the Republicans need to be more serious about negotiation then they were the last time around, but this is a sucker's bet. Giving the other party in a negotiation what they want while getting in return nothing more than their word that they'll give you want you want in the future is foolishness. Without a default allocation of cuts, something that will be scheduled to be implemented if no further action is taken, such a deal should be rejected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm also pissed by the way they are presenting the tax cut restorations.

If you are paying 26% marginal and you will be paying 28.6% it is presented as a 10% tax increase (accurate but %'s can be misleading) instead of a 2.6% increase or better as a $1500 tax increase (or $4.50 per day tax increase).

The wall street journal article actually got in trouble a bit (and just ignored it) because for the lowest bracket they went from a small rebate to a small tax. Effectively an infinite or even undefined tax rate increase.

If your taxes on dividends are going up from 15% to 30%, they are going up 15% but those opposed always state it as a 100% increase. It's accurate but misleading. It's another rhetorical device to make small tax rate increases (2% of a person making $100k per year) look bigger.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Agreed. I think the Republicans would gain some public trust by agreeing to the deal and pressuring Democrats to follow through. Their current stance isn't doing them or the country any favors. With all this fiscal cliff stuff and the knee-jerk "why don't Mexicans like us" immigration bills the GOP has suddenly come up with in the news I've heard a lot of congress members interviewed on the radio this week. Every one of them, Democrat or Republican, sounds so smarmy and ridiculous it's given me a renewed hatred for our political system. It's nothing but talking points, petty sniping, and bullshit. Fuck the lot of them.


I think the Republicans need to be more serious about negotiation then they were the last time around, but this is a sucker's bet. Giving the other party in a negotiation what they want while getting in return nothing more than their word that they'll give you want you want in the future is foolishness.


What you just described is every negotiation, ever.

I heard that Obama's proposal to congress this go-round includes unilateral executive power to raise the debt ceiling. I think that's brilliant, as it's obviously intended to be the first throwaway concession, but it's a big enough deal that it's the concession the Republicans have to go for and by extension it'll protect something more important to him. I'm curious what Chad will think about it, since he's smarter than me and better at negotiations that don't end with "fuck you, I won!"
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
What you just described is every negotiation, ever.


I have no idea what you mean here...whenever you negotiate a deal you accept terms that make their benefits concrete and leave yours up in the air? I hope that works out for you.

djgutierrez77 wrote:
I heard that Obama's proposal to congress this go-round includes unilateral executive power to raise the debt ceiling. I think that's brilliant, as it's obviously intended to be the first throwaway concession, but it's a big enough deal that it's the concession the Republicans have to go for and by extension it'll protect something more important to him. I'm curious what Chad will think about it, since he's smarter than me and better at negotiations that don't end with "fuck you, I won!"


Wait, you just shifted to a completely different argument....now you're talking about the initial offer, which I agree is a part of the negotiations game. In your previous post, you said that Republicans should actually accept such a meaningless promise of future cuts, and that's completely stupid. Any cuts (or tax increases) not specified in the deal should be viewed by both parties as a fiction that will never materialize, and to accept a deal which makes that gains of the opposition concrete while leaving the gains for your own side "TBA" is absolute idiocy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
I heard that Obama's proposal to congress this go-round includes unilateral executive power to raise the debt ceiling. I think that's brilliant, as it's obviously intended to be the first throwaway concession, but it's a big enough deal that it's the concession the Republicans have to go for and by extension it'll protect something more important to him. I'm curious what Chad will think about it, since he's smarter than me and better at negotiations that don't end with "fuck you, I won!"


Wait, you just shifted to a completely different argument....now you're talking about the initial offer, which I agree is a part of the negotiations game. In your previous post, you said that Republicans should actually accept such a meaningless promise of future cuts, and that's completely stupid. Any cuts (or tax increases) not specified in the deal should be viewed by both parties as a fiction that will never materialize, and to accept a deal which makes that gains of the opposition concrete while leaving the gains for your own side "TBA" is absolute idiocy.


Sorry. That was totally unclear on my part. What I meant was they should publicly and openly concede that $2/$1 spending cuts to increases was acceptable, and pressure the Democrats to make those cuts now. Not that they should just sign off and be done with it. The GOP talking points I've heard so far are all chest-thumping about how the current deal is unreasonable and they're not going to take it until the President "gets serious.*" It makes the GOP look like they're the ones refusing to budge while the President is out campaigning for his proposal with the public. Regardless of what's actually happening behind closed doors, the perception is that the President wants to give everyone a tax cut and the Republicans won't even come to the table. The GOP could easily flip that on it's ear by saying "Yes, absolutely 2 for 1 is a step in the right direction. We have a month, we'll accept the basic framework of the revenue increases you want, now let's talk about where those cuts are coming from and as soon as we have explicit and specific plans for cutting spending we'll sign off on a deal."

*"Gets serious" is clearly atop the talking points list for the GOP in this. I think I've heard a half-dozen different congressfolk use it in interviews this week, all with the same inflection and emphasis.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
What you just described is every negotiation, ever.


I have no idea what you mean here...whenever you negotiate a deal you accept terms that make their benefits concrete and leave yours up in the air? I hope that works out for you.


In this case, since one of the external considerations to the direct negotiation is the 2014 midterm elections, it's not really as risky as it appears. Yes, maybe you give the other side what they want, and maybe the only promise to give you what you want in the future, but if they renege on that promise, you have other hammers to pound them with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
What you just described is every negotiation, ever.


I have no idea what you mean here...whenever you negotiate a deal you accept terms that make their benefits concrete and leave yours up in the air? I hope that works out for you.


See my response to your unedited comment below. I'm talking about "Accepting" in the context of concessions, not finalizing a deal. Poor wording on my part.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Sorry. That was totally unclear on my part. What I meant was they should publicly and openly concede that $2/$1 spending cuts to increases was acceptable, and pressure the Democrats to make those cuts now. Not that they should just sign off and be done with it. The GOP talking points I've heard so far are all chest-thumping about how the current deal is unreasonable and they're not going to take it until the President "gets serious.*" It makes the GOP look like they're the ones refusing to budge while the President is out campaigning for his proposal with the public. Regardless of what's actually happening behind closed doors, the perception is that the President wants to give everyone a tax cut and the Republicans won't even come to the table. The GOP could easily flip that on it's ear by saying "Yes, absolutely 2 for 1 is a step in the right direction. We have a month, we'll accept the basic framework of the revenue increases you want, now let's talk about where those cuts are coming from and as soon as we have explicit and specific plans for cutting spending we'll sign off on a deal."


I think that's reasonable (though I think there's room to puch that number around a bit, making it closer to 2.5/1), unless the "basic framework of the revenue increases you want" means "the revenue increases you laid out in your first proposal", which includes several pretty ridiculous sweeping increases.

Quote:
*"Gets serious" is clearly atop the talking points list for the GOP in this. I think I've heard a half-dozen different congressfolk use it in interviews this week, all with the same inflection and emphasis.


I wouldn't know, I don't follow punditry that closely...but I'll take your word for it.

edit -

Quote:
See my response to your unedited comment below. I'm talking about "Accepting" in the context of concessions, not finalizing a deal. Poor wording on my part.


Yep, I missed the page break.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.