 You’ll help to keep one of three Paul Allen mega-yachts afloat. Yay! |
Obama Stimulus Saves Microsoft Billionaire Hundreds Of Millions — Apparently Paul Allen will be a bigger beneficiary of the Obama plan than you will.
Allen owns a majority stake in cable provider Charter Communications. Charter Communications this month said it would reduce its debt load by $8 billion and enter Chapter 11. Normally, partners at a firm like Charter Communications would have to pay taxes on the amount of debt forgiven in this process, which is, in a sense a one-time income windfall. Tax law calls it a “deemed distribution.” But under the new bill, companies like Charter Communications will be able to avoid paying taxes on forgiven debt until 2014. Even then, Paul will have until 2018 to pay it completely off. Paul owns about half of Charter, so his share of the Charter Commuincations’ $8 billion debt forgiveness is around $4 billion. At a tax rate of 25%, Allen could avoid paying as much as $1 billion in taxes until 2014, tax expert Robert Willens told the WSJ.
#32–Mark==slow down. READ what I posted, and what you posted. Take the names off the posts and – – – THINK!!!
I said the government hardly ever does it right: “I’m still waiting to see it.” To characterize this statement as: “You’re assuming something close to omniscience on its part if you assert that government can spend money better in _any_ aspect of the economy than the private sector.” is loopy.
You also fail to understand that the government can act as a stimulus EXACTLY BECAUSE the market makes its own economically based decisions.
Why should an investor risk money on a waste to biofuel plant if there is no power grid to connect to? Why should an investor risk money on a power grid if there are no users for it? CAN YOU SEE THIS??????
You think like a bumper sticker.
Instead–see that the very best system borrows what each sector of the economy does best, regardless of how poorly they all do from time to time or even most of the time.
Silly boy.
@ Mark
“You’re assuming something close to omniscience on its part if you assert that government can spend money better in _any_ aspect of the economy than the private sector would spend itself.”
Isn’t the entire problem that businesses are AFRAID to spend money in the current environment?
Money isn’t spent, it merely flows.
In in a low confidence situation, this flow stops flowing.
You are right that the private sector does more with the flow than the private sector, but the entire reason economic downturns occur is because an economic environment with a lot of unknowns and businesses get scared.
#34 – HMeyers – If the private sector is “afraid” to spend money in the current environment, then it’s because of the uncertainty caused by government intervention. Otherwise, it simply makes no sense for people to refrain from investing where it makes sense to do so–i.e., where they are likely to get a return.
We’re certainly in a difficult place economically, but the reason is because of past goovernment interventions. It’s not caused by some national phobia against “spending” that can only be cured by a government psychologist–at the point of a gun, no less.
The uncertainty was caused by massive fraud, which is more about the -lack- of government action, in specific the layabouts at the SEC.
But if you want to believe that the government serves no function, then why not move someplace with no functioning government? I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
Did anyone catch the $30 million for Pelosi’s Mouse project?
No pork, just a few rodents…
Rich people don’t create job with tax cuts, they use that money to buy vacation homes and pay them selves as bonus and by a few nice yacht like that.
#32, Mark,
if the private sector decides to invest in a power grid (or anything else), then you can be certain that someone has analyzed it and decided that there’s a return on investment. And if they’re wrong, it’s their money that’s been wasted.
That assumes that everything must turn a profit. How is the rural road that sees maybe 20 cars a week justified? What about street lamps? Or a park? Or a Bridge to No Where Road to No Where (and it actually was built at a cost of $40 million, it is a dead end).
Most of the original electrical grid was paid for by the Federal Government. Before the New Deal most cities had their own generators which were costly and inefficient.
The roads have always been paid for by government.
Every telephone bill currently has an assessment that contributes to rural communications and libraries.
And either the project isn’t warranted, in which case government is pursuing it for purely political reasons, or the project _is_ warranted (i.e., will provide a return), in which case government is merely replacing the private sector.
In many cases a private company can not afford the outlay, the payback is too long, or no one is interested. OR, on the other hand, if a private company has not built it yet, and we want it, why shouldn’t we build it. OR, why should the citizens be held hostage by large companies with monopolies?
There are two cell phone companies that service our area. And one has poor reception so it really comes down to just one carrier. Where is the competition? Where are the other cell phone companies building their towers? Why can’t we get the same deals other cell phone subscribers get?
Certainly, _some_ folks might benefit from government “investing” in something like a power grid, but it’s only at the involuntary cost to someone else.
Everything is an involuntary cost to someone else. When our Electrical Supplier builds a new plant to service the southern portion of the State, I am also paying through my electrical costs. And there isn’t any competition there either.
Government is a necessary evil, in that we need to have an impartial entity to secure our rights.
Where the hell do you get this stuff? WE are the government. It is participatory democracy. We elect our representatives to do as we need. As a group, we are stronger than if we were individuals.
However, it must be remembered that government is simply that entity with a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical region.
Wrong again. We are the ones with the monopoly on force. Those police? They work for us. If they are bad cops, then they can be fired. If they break the law, they can be charged.
It’s not particularly intelligent, it has no special knowledge, and it is simply not the same as a private entity when it spends money.
The government is not a private corporation. Their reason for being is totally different and in no way can be equated. Nor may a family be equated with a company or government. They all have there place.
#32, Mark,
You’re assuming something close to omniscience on its part if you assert that government can spend money better in _any_ aspect of the economy than the private sector would spend itself.
A government is there to look out for the people. The private sector is there to solely look out for themselves and NOT society as a whole. A government will spend money to build a park. Please, show me the company that has built many parks around the country. Or roads, schools, etc.
Do private companies care about the people they serve? Only as far as how much money they can get out of them. Does the government care about the people they serve? Sure they do, we elect their bosses.
You should use “hooray” more. Sounds good.
Here is data about the effect of gov’t stimulus spending during a depression. This guy probably knows more than anyone in the U.S. If ANYONE on this board thinks that they know better than this guy, check yourself into an institution.
FDR’s Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”
#27 – chuck,
It turns out that the rich pay more than half the taxes.
To get to the point at which the top N% pays half the taxes, you must define rich as about the top 5% or so, at an income of $153K. If that’s your idea of rich, fine.
http://tinyurl.com/3cquum
For my taste, I would love to see a table like the one found at the site above that broke down the top 1% further.
To say that the top 1% pays 39% of the total tax burden is fine. However, that top 1% starts at just $388K, which is more than I make, but hardly wealthy enough for tax shelters.
I’d like to know what percent earn more than $5M/yr and what their total tax percent is and what their effective tax rate is.
Then I’d like to see the same for those making $100M/yr or more. I bet they pay next to nothing, in effective tax rate.
#43
between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 paid an average of $873,054 in federal taxes.
between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 paid an average of $1,951,599 in federal taxes.
those making over $10,000,000 a year? ($26,000,000 on average.) They paid 6,730,096 in federal income tax,
#44 Paddy-O,
Source? Did that list state average percentage tax? Did you find any stats for $100M+?
BTW, the $5-10M crowd paid between 20% and 40%. The 10M+ crowd paid an average of 25%.
I’m surprised they paid that much. I pay about that too at a much lower salary.
The year H. Ross Perot ran, he had paid a whopping 6.8% total in taxes. Examples like him are the reason I’d like to hear the stats on the seriously wealthy.
#42, Cow-Patty,
FDR’s Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, …
I have some news for you. This looks fabricated. Often quoted by the right wing nuts, but never sourced back to Morganthau or Congress. And guess what? Every reference on line is the exact same quote. So when did Marganthau say it and to whom? Just saying it was Congress and in 1939 doesn’t cut it.
Why am I asking for the original source? It doesn’t sound right and it is nowhere else to be found. And the original book, written by Burton Folsom, is just another right wing nut hack piece.
But then there is this I found,
If Morganthau saw that reducing government spending caused the 1937 recession, it is extremely doubtful he would have advocated further cuts in 1939.
Most economists realize and agree it was the government spending in the New Deal that alleviated the Great Depression. It was also the massive government spending during WWII that helped build the industrial base that fueled the 1950s boom.
# 45 Misanthropic Scott said, “Source? ”
I found and copied this from IRS.Gov last year.
#42, Cow-Patty,
An interesting timeline for the Great Depression. I hope the formatting holds.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
————————————————-
1929 — — — 3.2%
1930 4.2% 3.4% – 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 – 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 – 2.1 24.9
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 *
1938 7.7 7.8 – 4.5 19.0 **
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
* recession begins, May 1937
** recession ends, June, 1938
If you notice how unemployment kept falling until Morganthau convinced Roosevelt to ease up in 1937.
Triggering a recession in 1937 due to spending cuts? Unemployment was still 14% that year, and was over 20% in 1933 and 1934 and 1935.
#48
An interesting timeline for the Great Depression unemployment rate.
Year Rate
————————————————-
1929, 3.2%
1930, 8.7
1931, 15.9
1932, 23.6
1933, 24.9
1934, 21.7
1935, 20.1
1936, 16.9
1937, 14.3 *
1938, 19.0 **
1939, 17.2
I hope this looks better. Rate = Unemployment rate.
During WWII the top tax rate rose to 91%. It wasn’t until 1963 that the top rate fell below 70%
“Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.”
#51, Cow-Patty,
Morganthau convinced Roosevelt to ease up on spending which he did. Instead, that lead directly to a recession where unemployment jumped substantially. Otherwise the recovery would have seen closer to 10% unemployment.
Growth in 1936 was 14%. Until the recession hit in later 1937, it was doing as well. Yet it ended up at only 5%. Gee, I guess the second half of 1937 was a little rough.
The 1937 recession prolonged the Depression by at least three years. It wasn’t until the massive government spending during WWII that the economy improved to pre-war levels. It was this same massive spending that Keynes originally tried to pursued Roosevelt to implement. Very similar to what Obama is trying to do know.
Sweden’s economy recovered from their recession by 1934. Simply because they followed Keynesian economics more strongly.
# 52 Mr. Fusion said, “Morganthau convinced Roosevelt to ease up on spending which he did.”
By ’39, how many years of “stimulus” spending had the gov’t done? Per the Treas Sec what was the NET result?
#47 – Paddy-tr0ll,
I found and copied this from IRS.Gov last year.
Perhaps you might try searching again so that you can provide a real link?
I posted a link to my source. Perhaps you might try the same.
# 54 Misanthropic Scott said, “Perhaps you might try searching again so that you can provide a real link?”
Why. I did a cut and paste last year from the site so I wouldn’t have to search again. Feel free to search their site. I was just trying to give data you asked for.
#55, Cow-Patty,
So another badly sourced claim. There are no dates for when it was applicable. Government statistics are usually a few years behind real time anyway.
#53, Cow-Patty,
I don’t know. Why don’t you find out where your comment came from and link to the source. Oopps, once again, you’ve been caught. You really just made it up. Or you heard it on Rush Limbaugh.
# 56 Mr. Fusion said, “Government statistics are usually a few years behind real time anyway.”
Correct. This was the latest listed FY data on the site from ’08. So, probably ’07. I don’t know if the rates changed for that bracket in the last 2 years. I don’t think so. You can always look it up.
N.B. Have your parents loosen the net nanny settings on your computer. IRS site might be blocked.
#57, Cow-Patty,
I don’t intend on searching for numbers that don’t exist on some large site. You claimed it, the onus is on you to prove it.
#58 LOL
I don’t waste my time “proving” things to children. I really don’t care if you want to search a site or not.
#59, Cow-Patty,
So the ignorant asshole is shown as a troll again. Your mommy must be proud.
John,
I think it’s clear to whom the mega-wealthy (e.g., Warren Buffet, George Soros) contribute and to whom the middle to upper-middle class (e.g., small business owners who want to get ahead) contribute.
Ah well…a sinister-looking character once said “never let a crisis go to waste”. This is basically the spoils system on a large scale.
This was once a great country or perhaps even that was a dream?
Here’s another interesting one:
Obama confirms that detainees outside of US have NO rights under U.S. Constitution.
Obama decides that Bush was correct after all.