Matt Taibbi: **** the business community!

[jeffrockit]

There was a clear trend in this election, the voters moved right in response to the previous two years where the government moved left. Moving further left wouldn't have made that result any different.

Naaaa. The voters just asserted their displeasure about the shitty economy. Nothing more.

Voters asserted their displeasure with the administration running the "shitty economy". The Republican side is no better but the Dems really screwed up with their complete ignoring of what the people wanted. If the people wanted what they pushed through, they would still be in power. If what the dems pushed through had helped the economy ,(most knew the policies were nothing more than political payback and idealogical desires), they may have had a better election result.

 

[asterism]

There was a clear trend in this election, the voters moved right in response to the previous two years where the government moved left. Moving further left wouldn't have made that result any different.

Naaaa. The voters just asserted their displeasure about the shitty economy. Nothing more.

Voters asserted their displeasure with the administration running the "shitty economy". The Republican side is no better but the Dems really screwed up with their complete ignoring of what the people wanted. If the people wanted what they pushed through, they would still be in power. If what the dems pushed through had helped the economy ,(most knew the policies were nothing more than political payback and idealogical desires), they may have had a better election result.

See that's what lots of people don't get. People wanted Healthcare Reform, but weren't happy about the mess that was passed. However had the stimulus actually worked, they would have accepted it as part of the package. But rather than actually do something and show real results consistent with the "the adults are in charge, here is the chart" they rushed through a plan that didn't work and got on with their agenda. Then when their predictions proved to be nothing but a farce they doubled down on Healthcare Reform.

And now we're left with this mess and a group of bureaucrats in denial. Matt Taibbi is just getting paid to try and convince the base that the minority "fringe" on the right was just a little bit bigger than previously thought, sorta like the state of the economic problem.

They are doubling down again!

 

[Qball]

Taibbi: I interview these people. They're not basing their positions on the facts — they're completely uninterested in the facts. They're voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that's enough for them.

Methinks Taibbi only interviews crazy people, since you'd have to be a little nuts to talk to him. Aside from him being one of those bellicose, under-informed, over-opinionated connect-the-dots liberals Bill Maher likes, most of the time he looks like he's drunk and/or he's going to steal your wallet.

 

[antagon]

Son?

i got worked up thinking about the chamber sham. colorful.

No worries.

I like your analogy about "roads for business to operate on." How do you propose to "reverse the entire economy and society commensurately?"

not something i advocate.

i do think there's a bunch of qualitative changes that the government can make which would project less burden on businesses and individuals who dont depend on the government so dearly, and more on those which do. we could, for example, assault the debt without raising income tax rates, and even by offering more in the way of deductability if the government would seek usage taxes on to big to fails, citizen and visa taxes/fees on immigrants and protection excises on labor unions... i could go on and on on ways the country would work if i was an evil dictator.

Well I think the key issue there is that it seems such reforms require a "dictator" of some sort and that's the problem.

That said, a slower but freer path to the same thing is actually doing something about it. Of the hundreds of small business owners I know, few vote.

i happen to run in circles of very politically active small business people. the chamber and other local business orgs are usually teeming with them.

its not that it would require that i be a dictator. you could note that many of these concepts are in vogue like the obamacare excise on providers/insurers, while the bush tax cuts ride with no/few changes made. some of these other ideas will come to pass in the decades to come. the government is changing as it has every 75-100 years as an inevitable response to the last pony it has mounted getting tired.

 

[antagon]

i do think there's a bunch of qualitative changes that the government can make which would project less burden on businesses and individuals who dont depend on the government so dearly, and more on those which do. we could, for example, assault the debt without raising income tax rates, and even by offering more in the way of deductability if the government would seek usage taxes on to big to fails, citizen and visa taxes/fees on immigrants and protection excises on labor unions... i could go on and on on ways the country would work if i was an evil dictator.

You are leaning way into my proprietary idealism of zero tax but numerous user fees. IMO this kind of taxation makes far more sense. Without the stigma of "taxing" anybody.

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

 

[asterism]

i do think there's a bunch of qualitative changes that the government can make which would project less burden on businesses and individuals who dont depend on the government so dearly, and more on those which do. we could, for example, assault the debt without raising income tax rates, and even by offering more in the way of deductability if the government would seek usage taxes on to big to fails, citizen and visa taxes/fees on immigrants and protection excises on labor unions... i could go on and on on ways the country would work if i was an evil dictator.

You are leaning way into my proprietary idealism of zero tax but numerous user fees. IMO this kind of taxation makes far more sense. Without the stigma of "taxing" anybody.

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This demonstrates the problem Progressives have, they think the solution is even more government and when the voters say otherwise they lash out. Taibbi obviously has contempt for businesses and look at what he says when told that's what the business community feels from Washington.

Aw, c'mon. Admit what really bothers you....Taibbi's complaint about who does you folks' thinking for you, and your lack of political-sophistication.​

Taibbi: I interview these people. They're not basing their positions on the facts — they're completely uninterested in the facts. They're voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that's enough for them.

Ya' gotta quit blaming others for your intellectual-laziness. Most people are gettin' a little tired o' hearing your excuses.​

 

[editec]

The business community?

The more this so called business community matters, the more this business community is pandered to, the worse the quality of most Americans lives has become.

This so called business community emplys maybe 12% of all workers, folks.

The rest of us are basically out in the cold.

 

[antagon]

You are leaning way into my proprietary idealism of zero tax but numerous user fees. IMO this kind of taxation makes far more sense. Without the stigma of "taxing" anybody.

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

i dont quite advocate that either. i think the policy perspective is different from the citizen perspective. as a citizen, i want the least tax liability with the least work. the compromise is that i should be able to pursue the least liability, but by virtue of 'work' which specifically displaces the role of the government in the economy. i think these could be more surgically applied. i dont mean a loophole system, i mean one whereby investment, employment and improvement is incentivized.

 

[asterism]

This demonstrates the problem Progressives have, they think the solution is even more government and when the voters say otherwise they lash out. Taibbi obviously has contempt for businesses and look at what he says when told that's what the business community feels from Washington.

Aw, c'mon. Admit what really bothers you....Taibbi's complaint about who does you folks' thinking for you, and your lack of political-sophistication.​

Taibbi: I interview these people. They're not basing their positions on the facts — they're completely uninterested in the facts. They're voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that's enough for them.

Ya' gotta quit blaming others for your intellectual-laziness. Most people are gettin' a little tired o' hearing your excuses.​

You project a great deal.

 

[asterism]

The business community?

The more this so called business community matters, the more this business community is pandered to, the worse the quality of most Americans lives has become.

This so called business community emplys maybe 12% of all workers, folks.

The rest of us are basically out in the cold.

Not true. Governments and non-profits do not employ 88% of the workforce and 100% of the taxes come ultimately from business.

 

[asterism]

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

i dont quite advocate that either. i think the policy perspective is different from the citizen perspective. as a citizen, i want the least tax liability with the least work. the compromise is that i should be able to pursue the least liability, but by virtue of 'work' which specifically displaces the role of the government in the economy. i think these could be more surgically applied. i dont mean a loophole system, i mean one whereby investment, employment and improvement is incentivized.

On that I agree, but the current tax system is too inefficient to function that way.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Rolling Stone blows. I'm surprised anyone still actually reads it. Even more shocking is the fact some idiots actually pay to read it. They grabbed three Socialist/Progressive Democrat hacks to discuss the Republican Party. Hey how bout offering a Republican rebuttle to these three stooges' rants? Journalism is dead in America. Rolling Stone is just another Liberal Rag that can't be trusted on anything. It's actually pretty sad.

 

[loosecannon]

You are leaning way into my proprietary idealism of zero tax but numerous user fees. IMO this kind of taxation makes far more sense. Without the stigma of "taxing" anybody.

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

that's another of my proprietary idealisms.

 

[loosecannon]

The business community?

The more this so called business community matters, the more this business community is pandered to, the worse the quality of most Americans lives has become.

This so called business community emplys maybe 12% of all workers, folks.

The rest of us are basically out in the cold.

Not true. Governments and non-profits do not employ 88% of the workforce and 100% of the taxes come ultimately from business.

I think what he is saying is that big business employs only 12% of the nation while another 10% are unemployed, the rest work in the public sector, are self employed or are employed by small businesses.

I dunno if 12% is accurate but it sounds about right to me.

 

[loosecannon]

*backs away slowly* when we write the book, that's your chapter.

the bigger difference in our perspectives is that i think there's an inherent dependency on government which mandates some tax. income tax. i advocate that there should be more emphasis on provisions which allow us to back out of that obligation. deductions. maybe it could be affordable to allow 100% or greater deductability.

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

i dont quite advocate that either. i think the policy perspective is different from the citizen perspective. as a citizen, i want the least tax liability with the least work. the compromise is that i should be able to pursue the least liability, but by virtue of 'work' which specifically displaces the role of the government in the economy. i think these could be more surgically applied. i dont mean a loophole system, i mean one whereby investment, employment and improvement is incentivized.

Which is where user fees allow you to choose your own tax rate based on the number of government services you consume. If you choose to base your business plan on running your equipment across public roads all day then you should pay for that service you consume.

If you park your equipment on one job site for 6 months working on just one project you aren't consuming that service and shouldn't have to pay for it.

The same idea applies to things like SS, unemployment insurance, medicare, banking, other insurances, education, transportation generally, utilities, communications etc.

 

[georgephillip]

The voters moved neither right or left in either case. They just expressed voter's remorse at their last choice.

The electorate hates both factions, both parties. They just want results.

How bad do you think things would have to get before a substantial percentage of voters decided it was in their best interest to vote AGAINST all Republicans AND Democrats on their ballots?

In much of this country there are established third party candidates already on the ballot.

Granted this option amounts to a political leap of faith, but our two-party plutocracy isn't fazed by a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat?

Have Republicans AND Democrats outlived their usefulness to this Republic?

Well of course they have outlived their usefullness but they still command an iron grip on political power!

What would it take to break this intractible two party monopoly if the tea party began as a Ron Paul offshoot and morphed into a GOP power center?

I suspect we are one hugely powerful independent leadership personality away from finding out. But of course any such leader will surely be assassinated. Just ask MLKJ, JFK, BK, or any other charismatic leader from the late 60's and early 70's. All of our leaders in that era died early deaths while Castro lived to be 221. go figure.

Huey Long had a hugely powerful leadership personality, and when he looked at DC he saw a restaurant serving only one dish. There were Republican waiters along one wall and Democrat waiters along the opposite wall.

But no matter which party delivered your order, "all the grub came from Wall Street's kitchen." Almost 80 years have passed since Huey came to this conclusion, and I don't think Finance has lost any influence on Republicans OR Democrats.

Someone like Huey might look at the internet and see a way to convince millions of voters they can participate in Revolutionary change WITHOUT doing anything except casting their ballots for candidates who are neither Republican NOR Democrat.

The tip-of-the-spear as always is the military vote.

If 25% of active duty and reserves decide Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to the US, civilian voters will likely follow along in much the same way they followed the military's neutering of Segregation after WWII.

 

[loosecannon]

One can only hope, but stronger than their quest for victory as individual parties is their commitment to maintaining the powerful charade of a free electorate.

IOW the two party power structure will be defended at all costs.

But it isn't invincible and it is at an historically weak moment.

 

[antagon]

I like a hybrid of Buffett's method (the one he did, not the one he says all us proles should do) which is avoid just about all income taxes while building en empire and then give 90% of it back later in life or when we die.

i dont quite advocate that either. i think the policy perspective is different from the citizen perspective. as a citizen, i want the least tax liability with the least work. the compromise is that i should be able to pursue the least liability, but by virtue of 'work' which specifically displaces the role of the government in the economy. i think these could be more surgically applied. i dont mean a loophole system, i mean one whereby investment, employment and improvement is incentivized.

Which is where user fees allow you to choose your own tax rate based on the number of government services you consume. If you choose to base your business plan on running your equipment across public roads all day then you should pay for that service you consume.

If you park your equipment on one job site for 6 months working on just one project you aren't consuming that service and shouldn't have to pay for it.

The same idea applies to things like SS, unemployment insurance, medicare, banking, other insurances, education, transportation generally, utilities, communications etc.

this takes the concept to an evolution which i hadn't considered. technology is just about there to facilitate some precision accounting for concepts like road use.

my take is still one whereby parties should have to hack away at an automatic liability, and income is an obvious gauge to determine it by. there are many intangible dependencies on government, and there is a risk in taxation of these measures constituting tax on expenditure/consumption.

one of the things i dig about our tax code's evolution since the 80s is that it has a VAT character to it, but through exempting (incentivizing) consumption rather than taxing it counter-intuitively. we want businesses on the road, we want to offer infrastructure as a gift to industry... but i am ready to ask a fee for the inevitable regulatory capture which goes on in DC. lobbies should line the treasury rather than politicians pockets.

another thing to consider, which has shaped our code the way it is, is the COTUS. getting at road mileage will be difficult for the congress to do directly, however, like it is now, mileage could be expensed and gauged for depreciation without a problem.

 

[antagon]

On that I agree, but the current tax system is too inefficient to function that way.

never close to perfect. i do think we've got a better system going than any other country which i'm familiar with.

i see efficiency in a tax code as a measure of its ability to pinpoint uninvested retained earnings while avoiding investments and further burdening expenses. employment taxes, for example, run against this grain, further burdening the expense of hiring someone in the first place. if the corporate tax rate was higher - like on the scale of personal taxes, even, but there were no employment taxes, but rather exemption for part of the expense of employees (i say hourly wages, particularly), employment would be incentivized through the tax code. as you point out, it is running ass-backwards at the moment.

on the government side, they could determine a rolling requirement for trust funds like social security based on the total tax take... sounds more effective than how the funds are being juggled now. not to far-fetched, either. after 2017, SS is upside-down, who would they be fooling taking a fringe for that shit then? they've already spent it like the rest of the largess; they might as well subsume it into the wider rate and offer a kick-back for employers.