How private equity firms make money

[cybercoma]

This is true, but assumes that demand originates from middle-class consumers that are affected by your policies. In fact, demand can also come from many other sources: consumers in other nations outside the reach of your policies, government programs and projects, the upper and lower classes, universities and other research institutions, and of course other corporations who have various motives that include but are not limited to satisfying consumer demand.

Fair enough, but destroying the middle-class and working class will destroy a country. People won't wallow in poverty for very long before they retaliate.

[Pliny]

That is not "47% of the working population". It's 47% of "tax units." As shown on this chart under the heading Tax units with zero or negative income tax.

That includes low income workers, but it also includes seniors and students and the unemployed. Interestingly, contrary to the hype coming from the right wing, that number is *decreasing*. 46.4% in 2011 was down from 49.5% in 2010 which was down from 50.8% in 2009 which was unchanged from the all-time high of 50.8% which was established in 2008 while George Walker Bush was still president.

So hopefully that brings some perspective to this notion that "Obama wants to grow the number of takers and reduce the number of makers!"

Well, you'll have to reconcile those statistics with these.

http://www.aei-ideas...12medicaid3.jpg

Your statistics seem to need a little further looking into. "Tax units" increasing by 4 million from 2008 to 2012 brings a drop in percentage but not a drop in numbers of individuals receiving benefits. Note as well the number of taxpayers is only negligibly higher for the same period indicating "makers" hardly changed.

Mindless partisan hype.

-k

Mindless partisan comment.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

No it doesnt. They have the lowest tax rates on both earned and investment income in modern history. Most of them taxed at a lower rate than their employees and servants.

You are completely failing to see the economic trend in society over the last few decades. Things have swung in favor of the rich not against them.

They do indeed have lower tax rates than in the past but they are still paying increasingly more of the tax burden while the middle class and lower class are increasingly paying less. That is the trend. And saying they have a lower rate than their employees and servants is a bit spurious in that you are talking about rates on investments as opposed to income tax rates. A confusion forwarded by Warren Buffet. Pointing to tax rates alone does not tell the story. Besides the rich would not be hiding their assets offshore if tax laws were in favour of them and not against them.

Obama isn't bucking the trend, as you might conclude, he is augmenting it.

[Pliny]

Delete post

Edited December 4, 2012 by Pliny

[dre]

They do indeed have lower tax rates than in the past but they are still paying increasingly more of the tax burden while the middle class and lower class are increasingly paying less. That is the trend. And saying they have a lower rate than their employees and servants is a bit spurious in that you are talking about rates on investments as opposed to income tax rates. A confusion forwarded by Warren Buffet. Pointing to tax rates alone does not tell the story. Besides the rich would not be hiding their assets offshore if tax laws were in favour of them and not against them.

Obama isn't bucking the trend, as you might conclude, he is augmenting it.

They do indeed have lower tax rates than in the past but they are still paying increasingly more of the tax burden while the middle class and lower class are increasingly paying less. That is the trend.

Thats because they have marshaled almost all of the income. How hard is that to understand? The bottom 50% controls about 2% of GDP...

And you are right that IS the trend. If the top few percent control 90% of GDP they are going to pay 90% of the tax burden. Once they control 95% they will need to pay 95%. Once they control a 100% then clearly they are going to have to pay for government by themselves, and you can whine about unfair that is.

[Argus]

They do indeed have lower tax rates than in the past but they are still paying increasingly more of the tax burden while the middle class and lower class are increasingly paying less. That is the trend. And saying they have a lower rate than their employees and servants is a bit spurious in that you are talking about rates on investments as opposed to income tax rates. A confusion forwarded by Warren Buffet. Pointing to tax rates alone does not tell the story. Besides the rich would not be hiding their assets offshore if tax laws were in favour of them and not against them.

The tax rates for the rich have been dropping for decades, and the bribing of politicians has helped revamp the tax code to help reward the rich with ever more money. Tax rates on corporations have plunged, as well, which, of course, largely benefits the rich, because they own most of the equity. Even so, the rich continue to hide money offshore, legally and illegally, wherever possible. It seems that for some, no matter how much you have, it's never enough. You'll lie, cheat and steal to get more.

Investment income is still INCOME. It used to be taxed as income, but now it's hardly taxed at all. You can say that people have already been taxed on their money, but that's really only the case for the poor and middle class. Most of the rich inherited their money, or get their income in the form of stock options. And even if it WAS true, so what? I bought my house with money which I had already been taxed on. Does that mean I should not have to pay taxes on my house and land? Suppose I start a business with the money I saved, money which had already been taxed, would that imply that any earnings from my business should also be tax free?

Btw, whenever 'the tax burden' is assessed, for some reason most organizations fail to take FICA payments or state taxes into account. When those are assessed as well, the middle class pays even higher rates.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Argus

[kimmy]

Well, you'll have to reconcile those statistics with these.

http://www.aei-ideas...12medicaid3.jpg

Shit, Pliny, get it together. The graph you've posted doesn't make the case you think it does.

The number of people eligible for food stamps or Medicaid doesn't actually tell us whether more people are paying federal taxes or not. You know what would tell us whether more people are paying taxes or not? Statistics about whether people are paying taxes or not.

Also, that little blue line along the bottom? The one charting private sector employment? That actually corresponds nicely with the "Zero or Negative Income Tax, as a percentage" line in the chart. The precipitous dip in private sector employment at the end of 2008 corresponds with the high point of "no tax" tax units reached in 2008; the rise in private sector employment shown on your graph corresponds with the decrease in "no tax" tax units.

Your statistics seem to need a little further looking into. "Tax units" increasing by 4 million from 2008 to 2012 brings a drop in percentage but not a drop in numbers of individuals receiving benefits. Note as well the number of taxpayers is only negligibly higher for the same period indicating "makers" hardly changed.

I think it's your ability to interpret data that needs a little further looking into.

"Tax units" increased by 7 million from 2008 to 2011.

If the number of "makers" refers to the number of people who paid federal income tax, then the number of "makers" went from 77.2 million in 2008 to 87.6 million in 2011. That's not "negligible".

As for the number of people receiving benefits... what of it?

Mindless partisan comment.

Look, dude, if you're going to compare Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez, people aren't going to take you seriously.

Mindless partisanship was the most polite explanation for your remark that I could think of.

(Other possibilities included:

-you've suffered a concussion

-you've suffered a psychiatric event of some description

-you're trying out material for a stand-up comedy routine

-you're afflicted with some sort of genetic abnormality that impaired the formation of your brain.)

The fact of the matter is, Obama has been very generous to businesses, and to the rich, and with tax rates. The stock market has done astoundingly well during the past 4 years. This idea that he's hostile to business couldn't be more wrong-- he's overly generous to business. He's done nothing to address the issues of the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable businesses paying next to nothing. The "Wall Street Reform" isn't nearly strong enough. Obama's a big softie.

The real reason bankers and corporations supported Romney so heavily? The knew that he'd be even *more* generous.

They do indeed have lower tax rates than in the past but they are still paying increasingly more of the tax burden while the middle class and lower class are increasingly paying less. That is the trend. And saying they have a lower rate than their employees and servants is a bit spurious in that you are talking about rates on investments as opposed to income tax rates. A confusion forwarded by Warren Buffet. Pointing to tax rates alone does not tell the story. Besides the rich would not be hiding their assets offshore if tax laws were in favour of them and not against them.

Obama isn't bucking the trend, as you might conclude, he is augmenting it.

The rich and the corporations are the only ones whose income is growing. Why shouldn't their share of the tax burden grow accordingly?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The rich and the corporations are the only ones whose income is growing. Why shouldn't their share of the tax burden grow accordingly?

Because the income tax burden of the 47% won't grow at all. What are non-rich people doing to make their income grow besides bitch about those who do?

[Michael Hardner]

What are non-rich people doing to make their income grow besides bitch about those who do?

What could the poor ever do to improve their lot, as a whole ? Individually, you can have the rare person who pulls themselves up, but as a group their tactics are to beg, complain, agitate, protest, demand, revolt... or in a civilized society they can vote themselves more benefits.

When Reaganomics started, there was more of a consensus that the benefits were distributed across all levels of society. That seems to be different now, so we're back to New Deal politics.

[bleeding heart]

A democracy where the people can vote themselves entitlement, does not favour the rich in the long run.

How long is long?

There are more rich now than at the social safety net's inception, and they're also richer.

We tried society for a good long while without the safety net, and that doesn't seem so great. Charity remained an insufficient means. So here we are.

And also: what kind of "democracy" would we have where people couldn't "vote themselves entitlements"?

[bleeding heart]

Because the income tax burden of the 47% won't grow at all. What are non-rich people doing to make their income grow besides bitch about those who do?

Absolutely nothing. Fully half of society is made up of entitled losers, which is a fascinatingly misanthropic spin on an age-old elitist attitude. As we know, human superiority--moral and intellectual--can be measured exclusively by income distribution. That is, Paris Hilton is a far better man than you'll ever be. Also the late Osama bin Laden.

[bush_cheney2004]

Absolutely nothing. Fully half of society is made up of entitled losers, which is a fascinatingly misanthropic spin on an age-old elitist attitude.

If they are part of "society" and benefiting from same, then pay up before insisting that others pay even more than they already do.

As we know, human superiority--moral and intellectual--can be measured exclusively by income distribution. That is, Paris Hilton is a far better man than you'll ever be. Also the late Osama bin Laden.

Works for me....I am not jealous of Hilton or Bin Laden riches. And I sure as hell wouldn't reward one more for being smug and morally superior. Economics doesn't give a damn about what you think should be "superior".

[bush_cheney2004]

What could the poor ever do to improve their lot, as a whole ? Individually, you can have the rare person who pulls themselves up, but as a group their tactics are to beg, complain, agitate, protest, demand, revolt... or in a civilized society they can vote themselves more benefits.

And how is that working for them? The free train ride is about to derail in a glorious Gomez wreck. Coincidently, Canadian Pacific just announced 4500 layoffs. More "poor people" to join the group of whiners.

When Reaganomics started, there was more of a consensus that the benefits were distributed across all levels of society. That seems to be different now, so we're back to New Deal politics.

Call it what you will, but killing the golden goose with class warfare will equally distribute misery. Maybe that will satisfy the socialists for a while.

Edited December 5, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

And how is that working for them? The free train ride is about to derail in a glorious Gomez wreck.

Calls of gloom & doom from you are quite rare, and I'm amazed that a reasonable tax increase is causing you to put on your engineer's cap and toot the train whistle of apocalypse.

Your stance on similar calls for the end of days from the left is usually "America has gone through this before, and it will work out fine".

So, let's look back at the 1930s, the New Deal, major tax hikes, the creation of social welfare and many such programs - they did NOT destroy America and - inexplicably to you, I'm sure - ushered in 50 years of prosperity.

The tax cut/trickle down approach didn't work as promised, and the Romneys are baffled as to why we don't have 47% millionaires in America. Maybe the people are starting to think about other options.

Call it what you will, but killing the golden goose with class warfare will equally distribute misery. Maybe that will satisfy the socialists for a while.

Yes, the money that is sitting offshore waiting to be invested wasn't trickled down as promised. There is this promise that the wealthy will go elsewhere but how would that look different from today, exactly ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Calls of gloom & doom from you are quite rare, and I'm amazed that a reasonable tax increase is causing you to put on your engineer's cap and toot the train whistle of apocalypse.

It is not doom and gloom....we enjoyed Gomez train wrecks every Friday night. I am in favor of more taxes...ON EVERYBODY, not just the evil, filthy rich.

Your stance on similar calls for the end of days from the left is usually "America has gone through this before, and it will work out fine".

And it will again. I already survived Jimmy Carter's brand of misery, so how bad could it be?

So, let's look back at the 1930s, the New Deal, major tax hikes, the creation of social welfare and many such programs - they did NOT destroy America and - inexplicably to you, I'm sure - ushered in 50 years of prosperity.

Yep...and the very same entitlements are about to strangle the rest of state and federal budgets. Spending is out of control and stricking it just to the rich will not solve fiscal problems.

The tax cut/trickle down approach didn't work as promised, and the Romneys are baffled as to why we don't have 47% millionaires in America. Maybe the people are starting to think about other options.

But we do...don't confuse wealth with income. Romney had the nerve to turn Occupy's "1%" on its head by pointing out just how many people are coasting on the backs of others. Truth is that the middle class and poor benefit the most from entitlement programs, but bitch a lot when asked to pay for them.

Yes, the money that is sitting offshore waiting to be invested wasn't trickled down as promised. There is this promise that the wealthy will go elsewhere but how would that look different from today, exactly ?

Hell if I know...the rich don't owe you or me a damn thing and no such promise was ever made. Don't confuse politics with economics.

[bleeding heart]

If they are part of "society" and benefiting from same, then pay up before insisting that others pay even more than they already do.

As has been exhaustively pointed out, with more or less zero rational rebuttal, no one has benefited more from the progressive tax system and the related social safety net than have the wealthy. The sad little moanings about the terrible victimization is not credible to almost anybody....and only arguably to the whiners themselves, in fact.

And I sure as hell wouldn't reward one more for being smug and morally superior. Economics doesn't give a damn about what you think should be "superior".

Your entire point was about who is "superior." Hence my apropos response.

[bush_cheney2004]

As has been exhaustively pointed out, with more or less zero rational rebuttal, no one has benefited more from the progressive tax system and the related social safety net than have the wealthy. The sad little moanings about the terrible victimization is not credible to almost anybody....and only arguably to the whiners themselves, in fact.

And yet it is the real whiners who want to take more from the wealthy...so they can continue to get more. Raise taxes on everybody if it's such a great idea. Not enough evil rich people to get the desired revenue for the entitlement train.

Your entire point was about who is "superior." Hence my apropos response.

No, it's always been your reflex to invoke such morally superior nonsense. It's just not relevant to this discussion.

[bleeding heart]

And yet it is the real whiners who want to take more from the wealthy...so they can continue to get more.

"Real" whiners...versus...what? the fake whiners to whom you've aligned yourself?

Not enough evil rich people to get the desired revenue for the entitlement train.

I of course said nothing about "evil" anything.

No, it's always been your reflex to invoke such morally superior nonsense.

Again, it was your notion in the first place..

It's just not relevant to this discussion.

Then you were remiss, obviously.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Real" whiners...versus...what? the fake whiners to whom you've aligned yourself?

See "Occupy Movement" for official lessons in whining. And I most certainly don't want to be aligned with them.

I of course said nothing about "evil" anything.

It's not all about you.

Again, it was your notion in the first place..

No, you made that leap for reasons only you understand.

Then you were remiss, obviously.

I hope so.

[bleeding heart]

See "Occupy Movement" for official lessons in whining. And I most certainly don't want to be aligned with them.

My uncontroversial point was that there are whiners aplenty to go 'round, and that some of them are (gasp!) people with whose sad whining you sympathize.

It's not all about you.

Nor is it all about bizarre non-sequiters.

No, you made that leap for reasons only you understand.

No, I took your unequivocal meaning for reasons everyone could understand.

You got sanctimonious...and now you regret it a little, I suppose. I put it to you that this is not plainly my fault.

[bush_cheney2004]

....No, I took your unequivocal meaning for reasons everyone could understand.

You got sanctimonious...and now you regret it a little, I suppose. I put it to you that this is not plainly my fault.

No, I regret getting involved in yet another esoteric discussion with you about morality and smug superiority. Next comes the sexual insecurity line of attack (i.e. "pantywaist")

[bleeding heart]

No, I regret getting involved in yet another esoteric discussion with you about morality and smug superiority.

If you cease moralizing with your sense of smug superiority, it will automatically dilute the amount of it to which you feel subjected.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you cease moralizing with your sense of smug superiority, it will automatically dilute the amount of it to which you feel subjected.

Oh, I very much doubt that. If Canada does one thing well, it is smug superiority.

[bleeding heart]

Oh, I very much doubt that.

It's by definition, BC. Less of your smugness means less smugness.

If Canada does one thing well, it is smug superiority.

Sure. It's a strong Amnerican trait as well, so you don't have much of a point here.

[dre]

Call it what you will, but killing the golden goose with class warfare will equally distribute misery. Maybe that will satisfy the socialists for a while.

The golden goose is the middle class that accounts for all the consumption, and its already being killed.