5 ms·

As opposed to the elected political leeches who want to use taxes slash the paychecks of people who work for a living? Politicians who aren't even honest enough

As opposed to the elected political leeches who want to use taxes slash the paychecks of people who work for a living? Politicians who aren't even honest enough to represent the true cost of the pensions they're paying up front, instead assuming a 10% return on investment every year forever and let the next council candidate make the unpopular decisions and deal with the crisis when they end up like Stockton and Detroit? (Or perhaps we can imagine that every single state or municipal pension system can make up the shortfall by taking money from all the billionaires they have lying around. Ha.) I'll tell you what, though. The "billionaire-financial leech" is spending money that he already has on a cause, and he will never see it again. The politician is spending someone else's money, and as thanks for this, he will earn campaign contributions from the relevant unions. Draw your own conclusions.

crdoconnor 11y ago
John Arnold made money trading - a zero sum game by definition. All of that $4 billion is wealth that was extracted from somebody else. Probably some of it from pension funds. He is now using that money to lobby politicians to strip wealth from the working classes. He is paying PR companies to burnish his image for doing so (this article did not come out of nowhere). What. a. hero. >Or perhaps we can imagine that every single state or municipal pension system can make up the shortfall by taking money from all the billionaires they have lying around. Yes, god forbid we should consider raising taxes on the 0.01% and using it to pay pensions for the working classes after they had so much of their money stolen by rapacious oligarchs like him.
- jensen123 11y ago
  Have you actually tried to calculate how much money you could raise if you increased taxes on the richest 0.01%? And have you checked how much money is necessary to pay out pensions in the future?
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). So you could raise rather a lot more than you needed, actually. Raising those taxes will also significantly drag down the cost of property (and consequently rents) which is the main outgoing for lower and middle class families.
    - minot 11y ago
      I honestly doubt we can raise the marginal tax on income (even just income over $1M a year) to over 50%. Not in the foreseeable future at least as far as the US is concerned.
      - harryh 11y ago
        It's already over 50% in CA (as well as various other places). 39.6% (Fed) + 12.3% (CA) = 51.9% There are city taxes as well in some places, for example add an additional 1.5% to that if you live in SF. Thinking about this, I suppose that the fact that you can deduct state taxes on your fed taxes brings this down a bit so maybe it does dip below 50? Not sure about the math. Real close though.
        gergles 11y ago
        The deduction you can make on your federal taxes for state taxes paid vanishes once you're in AMT land which you almost certainly are if you're in the 39.6% tax bracket.
        harryh 11y ago
        If you're paying the AMT the 39.6% doesn't apply. The top AMT rate is 28%. Whether you pay the AMT or not isn't really based on how much money you make. It's based on how many deductions not allowed under the AMT you take (deductibility of state taxes being the biggest one).
    - harryh 11y ago
      > The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-20110...

crdoconnor 11y ago

John Arnold made money trading - a zero sum game by definition. All of that $4 billion is wealth that was extracted from somebody else. Probably some of it from pension funds. He is now using that money to lobby politicians to strip wealth from the working classes. He is paying PR companies to burnish his image for doing so (this article did not come out of nowhere). What. a. hero. >Or perhaps we can imagine that every single state or municipal pension system can make up the shortfall by taking money from all the billionaires they have lying around. Yes, god forbid we should consider raising taxes on the 0.01% and using it to pay pensions for the working classes after they had so much of their money stolen by rapacious oligarchs like him.

jensen123 11y ago
Have you actually tried to calculate how much money you could raise if you increased taxes on the richest 0.01%? And have you checked how much money is necessary to pay out pensions in the future?
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). So you could raise rather a lot more than you needed, actually. Raising those taxes will also significantly drag down the cost of property (and consequently rents) which is the main outgoing for lower and middle class families.
  - minot 11y ago
    I honestly doubt we can raise the marginal tax on income (even just income over $1M a year) to over 50%. Not in the foreseeable future at least as far as the US is concerned.
    - harryh 11y ago
      It's already over 50% in CA (as well as various other places). 39.6% (Fed) + 12.3% (CA) = 51.9% There are city taxes as well in some places, for example add an additional 1.5% to that if you live in SF. Thinking about this, I suppose that the fact that you can deduct state taxes on your fed taxes brings this down a bit so maybe it does dip below 50? Not sure about the math. Real close though.
      - gergles 11y ago
        The deduction you can make on your federal taxes for state taxes paid vanishes once you're in AMT land which you almost certainly are if you're in the 39.6% tax bracket.
        harryh 11y ago
        If you're paying the AMT the 39.6% doesn't apply. The top AMT rate is 28%. Whether you pay the AMT or not isn't really based on how much money you make. It's based on how many deductions not allowed under the AMT you take (deductibility of state taxes being the biggest one).
  - harryh 11y ago
    > The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-20110...