Peter Schiff schooling Congress
#3
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Maybe you're lying blaen99? In fact, you ARE lying about a few things.
Just kidding. Someone needs to tell this corporate jet riding fat cat CEO to simmer down. Look at him on that video, not paying his fair share or sharing in the sacrifice. Disgusting!
Just kidding. Someone needs to tell this corporate jet riding fat cat CEO to simmer down. Look at him on that video, not paying his fair share or sharing in the sacrifice. Disgusting!
Last edited by Braineack; 09-21-2011 at 08:53 AM.
#6
He claims that he pays more now than people did in the past. In the past, taxes for those who made a million+ were as high as 95% - okay, you can play the exemption and deductible card, that is fine. Sure, it made it under 95% counting those. But if you ignore exemptions and deductibles, we have historically low rates.
Later in the video he claims he paid half of his income in taxes. The rates he quoted were excluding any deductibles and exemptions.
Either you include or exclude them. You can't ignore them when it suits your point, and then include them when it suits your point. This is just one example. Alternatively, you could try to tell me he takes no deductions, but then I'd just laugh at you.
I like his points, and I said I liked him as a speaker. But you can't do this if you expect to be taken seriously.
#7
Oh really, Brainy?
He claims that he pays more now than people did in the past. In the past, taxes for those who made a million+ were as high as 95% - okay, you can play the exemption and deductible card, that is fine. Sure, it made it under 95% counting those. But if you ignore exemptions and deductibles, we have historically low rates.
Later in the video he claims he paid half of his income in taxes. The rates he quoted were excluding any deductibles and exemptions.
Either you include or exclude them. You can't ignore them when it suits your point, and then include them when it suits your point. This is just one example. Alternatively, you could try to tell me he takes no deductions, but then I'd just laugh at you.
I like his points, and I said I liked him as a speaker. But you can't do this if you expect to be taken seriously.
He claims that he pays more now than people did in the past. In the past, taxes for those who made a million+ were as high as 95% - okay, you can play the exemption and deductible card, that is fine. Sure, it made it under 95% counting those. But if you ignore exemptions and deductibles, we have historically low rates.
Later in the video he claims he paid half of his income in taxes. The rates he quoted were excluding any deductibles and exemptions.
Either you include or exclude them. You can't ignore them when it suits your point, and then include them when it suits your point. This is just one example. Alternatively, you could try to tell me he takes no deductions, but then I'd just laugh at you.
I like his points, and I said I liked him as a speaker. But you can't do this if you expect to be taken seriously.
#9
Edit: Here ya go
Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1913 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1914 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1916 2% 3% 5% 7% 10%
1918 16% 21% 41% 64% 72%
1920 12% 17% 37% 60% 68%
1922 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1924 7% 11% 27% 43% 44%
1926 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1928 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1930 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1932 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1934 11% 19% 37% 56% 58%
1936 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1938 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1940 14% 28% 51% 62% 68%
1942 38% 55% 75% 85% 88%
1944 41% 59% 81% 92% 94%
1946 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1950 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1962 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76%
1966 - 1976 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%
1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%
1982 16% 22% 49% 50% 50%
1984 14% 18% 42% 45% 50%
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%
1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1990 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1992 15% 15% 28% 28% 31%
1994 15% 15% 28% 31% 39.6%
1996 15% 15% 28% 31% 36%
1998 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%
2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%
2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
#10
Amusingly, Jacob proved my point with the source I was going to post. Thanks Jacob.
P.S. You guys may want to read what someone writes. I said I agree with his points, what is it with politics and nonexistent reading comprehension? My issue isn't with his points, it's how he made them, and Jacob pretty effectively demonstrated mine.
P.P.S. If he seriously is trying to claim before 1918, that's laughable, and re-watching the video as well as reading the transcripts, it's pretty clear he's not. The specific period of time he is referring to is likely the 50s to 60s or 70s - America's so-called "peak" as what he has talked about in other sources referred to. Pre-1918 America wasn't a prominent country by any means, and that's being nice about it. The roaring 20s? Sure, absolutely. But pre-1918 killed that argument bro.
P.S. You guys may want to read what someone writes. I said I agree with his points, what is it with politics and nonexistent reading comprehension? My issue isn't with his points, it's how he made them, and Jacob pretty effectively demonstrated mine.
P.P.S. If he seriously is trying to claim before 1918, that's laughable, and re-watching the video as well as reading the transcripts, it's pretty clear he's not. The specific period of time he is referring to is likely the 50s to 60s or 70s - America's so-called "peak" as what he has talked about in other sources referred to. Pre-1918 America wasn't a prominent country by any means, and that's being nice about it. The roaring 20s? Sure, absolutely. But pre-1918 killed that argument bro.
Last edited by blaen99; 09-21-2011 at 04:42 PM.
#12
Corporate taxes have nothing to do with my argument if you are trying to rebut my points, Jacob, although corporate tax rates look similar to income tax rates IIRC, with the notable exception of corporate deductions and exemptions is much greater %-wise than individuals.
I've got a source somewhere on hand, trying to dig it up.
(Edit) Be warned, it's an obnoxious PDF.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...al_bracket.pdf
Corporate tax rates peaked at 53%, although taxing corporations is the peak of silliness. If the gov't insists on taxing both corps and individuals, it's double taxation.
I've got a source somewhere on hand, trying to dig it up.
(Edit) Be warned, it's an obnoxious PDF.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...al_bracket.pdf
Corporate tax rates peaked at 53%, although taxing corporations is the peak of silliness. If the gov't insists on taxing both corps and individuals, it's double taxation.
#14
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
[Placeholder/subscription reminder]
I ran out of time about 4 minutes in. I will reserve final judgment until I have time to listen to all of it, but he seemed to either gloss over or plain misdiagnose two elements:
1. Speaking of jobs, he refers to profits and capital as the reason for hiring. I assume he is considering demand for the product being produced as being wrapped up in the "profits" element, but it is worth disentangling.
2. Regarding capital, he says "there is no money to borrow." I will be curious to see how he expounds on that as, on its face, it is factually and operationally incorrect. It seems to smack of the "deposits create loans" way of thinking. There is no lack of lending capability.
I ran out of time about 4 minutes in. I will reserve final judgment until I have time to listen to all of it, but he seemed to either gloss over or plain misdiagnose two elements:
1. Speaking of jobs, he refers to profits and capital as the reason for hiring. I assume he is considering demand for the product being produced as being wrapped up in the "profits" element, but it is worth disentangling.
2. Regarding capital, he says "there is no money to borrow." I will be curious to see how he expounds on that as, on its face, it is factually and operationally incorrect. It seems to smack of the "deposits create loans" way of thinking. There is no lack of lending capability.
#18
That would be true of private investment. When the gov't borrows or taxes and spends, in the name of "stimulus", it will spend money on crap for which there may be no demand. Such as Solyndra solar panels. This is what happens when bureaucrats spend other people's money. Wealth is not created when money is spent where there isn't matching consumer demand.
#19
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
In the USA (and Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK, but not Greece, Belarus, Argentina, etc), loans create deposits. Banks are capital constrained, not reserve constrained.
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-43.pdf
http://www.bis.org/publ/work292.pdf
Originally Posted by Borio & Disyatat
[...] the level of reserves hardly figures in banks’ lending decisions. The amount of credit outstanding is determined by banks’ willingness to supply loans, based on perceived risk-return trade-offs, and by the demand for those loans.
Try not to let that
#20
He's got great points! He chose poor ways to make them :(. Quite honestly, lying via omission pisses me the **** off. He could have very easily came up with alternative arguments that were completely true and didn't rely on what I've covered before. His points are strong! But they don't make good sound bytes. He went for good press/sound bytes and sounding good over actually trying to get something done, which makes me both sad and angry.
(Edit) I mean, just look at his hiring restrictions example in the video! That's freaking gold. But he went for sound bytes and political points over sound arguments!