On-Topic Democracy has been suspended by the Tea Party Republicans!

[Jack Springer]

Bill Gates himself has said that wealthy people do not appreciate any difference in lifestyle for income beyond $100 million/year. After that, it's just numbers on paper.

Neither Gates or Buffett give any extra tax money to the federal government. I'll go out on a limb and say that they hire a team of high-priced accountants and lawyers that try very hard to limit their tax liability.

I'd be curious to learn if Buffett receives Social Security benefits .... I'll bet he does.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Neither Gates or Buffett give any extra tax money to the federal government. I'll go out on a limb and say that they hire a team of high-priced accountants and lawyers that try very hard to limit their tax liability.

I'd be curious to learn if Buffett receives Social Security benefits .... I'll bet he does.

I don't tell my employer to withhold more for my Social Security benefits, but I would still support removing the SocSec cap. I don't really think of those two stances as being hypocritical. I don't overpay on property tax to support schools more either but I support better education funding, and would be willing to pay more for it. Saying anyone who supports these things should just individually give more is kinda myopic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Neither Gates or Buffett give any extra tax money to the federal government. I'll go out on a limb and say that they hire a team of high-priced accountants and lawyers that try very hard to limit their tax liability.

I'd be curious to learn if Buffett receives Social Security benefits .... I'll bet he does.

At least his right-wing detractors are consistent: they don't want government to help the poor or sick, and they won't do it either.

 

[bankside]

No, those assets are pieces of paper that say they own portions of this or that company, or have X dollars sitting in a heap sucking up more dollars from the wealth stream. The material plant of all those companies and banks wouldn't be affected in the least. The actual problem with seizing that wealth is that it couldn't be immediately sold without depressing the value of many companies across the board, and that much of America would be bought up by foreigners when the stock was sold, resulting in a drain of income out of the country.

Well, I'm identifying another problem: that the current owners are competent at managing that wealth, and there is no reason to assume the new owners are equally competent. This is problematic if so many of our careers depend on that skillful oversight. So, taking the physical plant and giving it to someone else may not be a good bargain. The people who control those pieces of paper, also get to vote on the board as to how those assets are effectively used.

Alternately, aren't rich capital owners also likely to hold bonds? So…seizing their assets through taxation... to pay them the bond owed?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, I'm identifying another problem: that the current owners are competent at managing that wealth, and there is no reason to assume the new owners are equally competent. This is problematic if so many of our careers depend on that skillful oversight. So, taking the physical plant and giving it to someone else may not be a good bargain. The people who control those pieces of paper, also get to vote on the board as to how those assets are effectively used.

Alternately, aren't rich capital owners also likely to hold bonds? So…seizing their assets through taxation... to pay them the bond owed?

The new owners will probably have the same financial advisors as the old ones.

 

[Jack Springer]

I don't tell my employer to withhold more for my Social Security benefits, but I would still support removing the SocSec cap. I don't really think of those two stances as being hypocritical. I don't overpay on property tax to support schools more either but I support better education funding, and would be willing to pay more for it. Saying anyone who supports these things should just individually give more is kinda myopic.

Both are totally hypocrites. If Buffett collect SS then he's a total slime ball.

 

[Kulindahr]

Both are totally hypocrites. If Buffett collect SS then he's a total slime ball.

IIRC Buffet donates his SS check to a charity because the government won't take it back. And he continues to advocate lifting caps and instituting means testing.

 

[Jack Springer]

IIRC Buffet donates his SS check to a charity because the government won't take it back. And he continues to advocate lifting caps and instituting means testing.

He could have refused to sign up. He's a slime ball.

I advocate everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and wise.

 

[Kulindahr]

He could have refused to sign up. He's a slime ball.

I advocate everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and wise.

How do you "refuse to sign up"?

And what does your second line have to do with the first?

 

[CowboyBob]

Neither Gates or Buffett give any extra tax money to the federal government. I'll go out on a limb and say that they hire a team of high-priced accountants and lawyers that try very hard to limit their tax liability.

I'd be curious to learn if Buffett receives Social Security benefits .... I'll bet he does.

Both are totally hypocrites. If Buffett collect SS then he's a total slime ball.

It's really none of your business what Gates and Buffet do with their money.

Since you're judging them like this, is it alright if we judge you like this too?

 

[TX-Beau]

He could have refused to sign up. He's a slime ball.

I advocate everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and wise.

I advocate strippers and whiskey.

BANKSIDE IS A COMMIENADIAN!!!!!!

I just knew it! You can have my billions when you pry them from my cold dead hands!!!

The problem with that, is that the American Dream tells you that YOU will be Bill Gates and who wants to make policy taking our mythical billions away?

You'd have to convince Americans that yes indeeedy they are going to die poor first.

 

[Kulindahr]

I advocate strippers and whiskey.

BANKSIDE IS A COMMIENADIAN!!!!!!

I just knew it! You can have my billions when you pry them from my cold dead hands!!!

The problem with that, is that the American Dream tells you that YOU will be Bill Gates and who wants to make policy taking our mythical billions away?

You'd have to convince Americans that yes indeeedy they are going to die poor first.

I don't think anyone really believes in that American dream any longer. I know hardly anyone who thinks that what they can even be much more successful than their parents, and that people like Bill Gates are the exception.

 

[Jack Springer]

It's really none of your business what Gates and Buffet do with their money.

Since you're judging them like this, is it alright if we judge you like this too?

Make sure you remember what you just said.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I don't think anyone really believes in that American dream any longer. I know hardly anyone who thinks that what they can even be much more successful than their parents, and that people like Bill Gates are the exception.

That's the sad truth. No one I've ever talked to my age or younger (at least, excluding wildly delusional people) seemed to have any confidence that they'd do better than their parents. Most are aiming at "hopefully eventually catching up to their parents." Including owning homes.

 

[CowboyBob]

Make sure you remember what you just said.

So you agree it's alright for everyone to judge you. Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the sad truth. No one I've ever talked to my age or younger (at least, excluding wildly delusional people) seemed to have any confidence that they'd do better than their parents. Most are aiming at "hopefully eventually catching up to their parents." Including owning homes.

Home ownership is a big one. I know a number of 30-somethings who have given up on ever owning their own, unless they inherit one, even though their parents have substantial ones. It's one of my beefs about the bail-out: we should have done as Iceland did, and bailed out the people suckered into buying homes they couldn't actually afford, not the banks -- the banks would have been saved by the payments coming in, and the people would have stayed on the path to becoming homeowners.

 

[bankside]

It's one of my beefs about the bail-out: we should have done as Iceland did, and bailed out the people suckered into buying homes they couldn't actually afford, not the banks -- the banks would have been saved by the payments coming in, and the people would have stayed on the path to becoming homeowners.

YES!

I remember thinking the same thing. Anyone who qualifies and willing to meet certain conditions would get assistance to pay their bills for three or four months. The biggest scam of my lifetime was the mortgage securities sector saying "Well it's too complicated to figure out who is owed the bad debt so we give up."

I would have made them sweat it out. I would have made them untangle the mess, compute their losses, and let the market assign blame and carnage and write-down in the best capitalist tradition, without all that horrible government red tape and bureaucracy wading in to save their sorry capitalist asses.

And, if they felt like not lending, I would have threatened to start lending in competition with them. Fuck hiring the banks to provide capital liquidity to the market, I would have done it directly. And instead of ditching their jets and taking limos to attend inquiries of congresses and parliaments in a show of frugality, they would have been shitting themselves and arriving out of breath on bicycles.

 

[andysayshi]

I recall saying similar 4 years ago.

The surest way to continue the collapse of the banking and mortgage sector is to stop their flow of income. A mortgage holder who can make 75% of his repayments is better for the bank than losing the mortgage and selling the house at half its value, or not selling it at all.

I'm surprised it isn't the banks supporting this action - making SUBSTANTIAL concessions to retain paying customers, even if it means extending loan terms to reduce payments. Obviously some foreclosures have to happen, but the banks should be doing their utmost to retain mortgage clients in this climate.

Bailing out the banks and not the mortgages simply set the same cards back up so they can fall over again later.

 

[Kulindahr]

I recall saying similar 4 years ago.



Bailing out the banks and not the mortgages simply set the same cards back up so they can fall over again later.

Exactly.