(no subject)
Nov. 4th, 2010 01:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
foolsguineaThe election's over, so we can stop talking about politics, right? Well, no, there's still good reason to talk about policy.
~~~
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
I suggest comparing the record of the next Congress, in, oh, 23 months.
~~~
The following is a quote from http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics :
Scales of economy
I was told here that the raising of domestic marginal tax rates on the rich is problematic, because the rich are the ones who have the capital -- and that the pricing of securiies would therefore suffer if rich people had to pay more taxes instead of being free to invest their wealth in te free market. "First and foremost, there is the availability of that capital," wrote this sage commenter. "You can't invest what you don't have."
So I decided to investigate. I will admit that my numbers might not be perfect, so I invite everyone to dig up better ones if they can. However, what I discovered was this:
Total capital under the control of pension funds and institutional investors alone was $142 trillion in 2007. IRS income tax receipts were $1.1 trillion. The top 1% of taxpayers paid 37% of that sum -- which amounts to $407 billion.
Unless my calculations are wrong, if we doubled the tax burden on these folks, the total funds removed from the investment pool would be $407 billion. That would represent nearly a .3% reduction in available capital. Not 3%. .3%.
Of course, no one is proposing a doubling of those marginal tax rates. And the $142 trillion only represents a percentage of total available capital worldwide. So the reduction is probably more on the order of less than .1%.
I am convinced. A .1% reduction in the amount of capital available would lead to a collapse of market capitalization worldwide -- which, in turn, would plunge us into a global depression. Forget about CMOs. Forget about the failure of the ratings agencies. A .1% reduction in available capital is simply not something the economy can possibly handle.
Tea Party, here I come!
I appreciate such well-developed sarcasm.
~~~
Rand Paul: Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor, we all are interconnected in the economy…We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people, so just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone…
There are no rich, but we all have rich clients? What now? The man, he contradicts himself there.
~~~
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
I suggest comparing the record of the next Congress, in, oh, 23 months.
~~~
The following is a quote from http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics :
Scales of economy
I was told here that the raising of domestic marginal tax rates on the rich is problematic, because the rich are the ones who have the capital -- and that the pricing of securiies would therefore suffer if rich people had to pay more taxes instead of being free to invest their wealth in te free market. "First and foremost, there is the availability of that capital," wrote this sage commenter. "You can't invest what you don't have."
So I decided to investigate. I will admit that my numbers might not be perfect, so I invite everyone to dig up better ones if they can. However, what I discovered was this:
Total capital under the control of pension funds and institutional investors alone was $142 trillion in 2007. IRS income tax receipts were $1.1 trillion. The top 1% of taxpayers paid 37% of that sum -- which amounts to $407 billion.
Unless my calculations are wrong, if we doubled the tax burden on these folks, the total funds removed from the investment pool would be $407 billion. That would represent nearly a .3% reduction in available capital. Not 3%. .3%.
Of course, no one is proposing a doubling of those marginal tax rates. And the $142 trillion only represents a percentage of total available capital worldwide. So the reduction is probably more on the order of less than .1%.
I am convinced. A .1% reduction in the amount of capital available would lead to a collapse of market capitalization worldwide -- which, in turn, would plunge us into a global depression. Forget about CMOs. Forget about the failure of the ratings agencies. A .1% reduction in available capital is simply not something the economy can possibly handle.
Tea Party, here I come!
I appreciate such well-developed sarcasm.
~~~
Rand Paul: Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor, we all are interconnected in the economy…We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people, so just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone…
There are no rich, but we all have rich clients? What now? The man, he contradicts himself there.
