Dennis Hastert

[Spartanmack]

maybe they are (or were) particularly bad about that, but it's not uncommon in the private sector generally. I've watched some pretty retarded (and often pathologically dishonest) people get promoted into the stratosphere. it seems to be a hallmark of a lazy manager that they consider it easier to promote head cases out of their hair, instead of disciplining them or shitcanning them.

in the private sector though, these sort of abuses are never seen as a reason to curb executive pay, corporate welfare handouts, tax breaks, etc. by the GOP like they are for the public sector.

It's not the role of the GOP or government in general to regulate or cap executive or any other pay at private institutions (except where the government is wasting taxpayer $ on bailouts - they shouldn't be bailing out companies but if they do, they should be able to cap pay there). That's the job of the owners (individuals, families, partners, trusts, equity shareholders, etc). You sound like the guy in the Onion article you posted on the Texas rainfall thread, except for you the solution is always higher taxes and more regulation.

 

[Michchamp]

It's not the role of the GOP or government in general to regulate or cap executive or any other pay at private institutions (except where the government is wasting taxpayer $ on bailouts - they shouldn't be bailing out companies but if they do, they should be able to cap pay there). That's the job of the owners (individuals, families, partners, trusts, equity shareholders, etc). You sound like the guy in the Onion article you posted on the Texas rainfall thread, except for you the solution is always higher taxes and more regulation.

except that a lot of (or maybe even all?) publicly-held, private corporations still get all sorts of government money in some way, shape or form, from huge tax breaks to outright cash-handout incentives, subsidies, infrastructure investments, etc. So there is more of a reason for government intervention in their management. It's like public universities... you want to take taxpayer money, you have to comply with the 1st Amendment, EEOC, ADA, etc.

When GOP politicians (except Ron Paul), UChicago economists, etc. talk about business competition, they always forget to specify that only mom & pop stores live in that Econ 101 world, where higher minimum wage laws and regulations affect their bottom line. The Fortune 500 does not.

 

[Spartanmack]

Like I've said many times, the corporate tax rate in the US should be 0%. Companies getting a tax break aren't getting government money, they're just not having some of their money confiscated by the government. And where do you think the money for the infrastructure investment is coming from in the first place? It is the taxpayers' money, not the government's - it belongs to them, me, even you assuming you pay your taxes. I'm pretty sure they have to comply w/ all those things even if they don't take government money but even if that's not true, what does that have to do w/ whether the government has the authority to cap anyone's pay?

And no, they don't all forget that stuff. UChicago economists are not pro-big business or for tax breaks to corporations. They're generally against all taxes, subsidies and regulations that lead to inefficient resource allocation - in this case, capital. And they don't forget to specify that only mom and pop businesses live in that "Econ 101" world because that's simply not true. Higher minimum wages and other regulations affect everyone's bottom line. Any accountant or economist will tell you that. We all know you want to live in a more socialist America and you think because someone or some entity can afford to have more money confiscated, then they should so the benevolent government officials can redistribute it according to some made up construct like your nonexistent social contract. But the fact that you choose to ignore the reality of the disastrous consequences, even assuming no government waste or corruption, doesn't make it true that there are none.

 

[Michchamp]

Like I've said many times, the corporate tax rate in the US should be 0%. ...

I don't get that. Why?

Corporations use taxpayer-funded infrastructure just as well as private citizens do.

Hell, they probably use more of it than private citizens do. And look at the well-documented examples now of McDonald's, Walmart, etc. paying their employees shit, and relying on taxpayers to keep them healthy (Medicaid) and fed (food stamps).

And I don't think this is any "double tax" issue because not all income they earn is paid out as salaries to their workers, and therefore taxed; or simply hoard cash. They can package compensation as different sorts of bonuses to get around income tax laws, not to mention employ foreign nationals who do not pay US income tax, etc.

 

[Michchamp]

the other canard floating around is that tax breaks fuel job growth.

That's a myth. Even spartanhack's favorite global warming-denying website doesn't fall for that nonsense.

There are a number of studies on this topic. My tax law professor used to tell us that the only consistent thing employers did when they received tax breaks was consolidate/merge/acquire competitors, or buy out employee contracts & lay them off! Here's an article on the topic. Another. Link to the study.

Tax cuts have the opposite effect of what we're constantly told by the GOP! It's INSANE!!!

I think the real, and only logical result of tax cuts and lower tax rates for the top income earners is that cash comes out of circulation and is hoarded, leading to greater income inequality (which we've seen), and slower economic growth overall. There's simply no reason anyone needs that much cash, even if they've "earned it" by "hard work" (as they claim). And once they have it, it sits there, in trusts, whale-sized retirement accounts, or overseas bank accounts... it doesn't circulate back into the economy... it doesn't "create jobs."

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't get that. Why?

Corporations use taxpayer-funded infrastructure just as well as private citizens do.

Hell, they probably use more of it than private citizens do. And look at the well-documented examples now of McDonald's, Walmart, etc. paying their employees shit, and relying on taxpayers to keep them healthy (Medicaid) and fed (food stamps).

And I don't think this is any "double tax" issue because not all income they earn is paid out as salaries to their workers, and therefore taxed; or simply hoard cash. They can package compensation as different sorts of bonuses to get around income tax laws, not to mention employ foreign nationals who do not pay US income tax, etc.

It's just part of the tax reform I would support. Scrap the corporate tax, treat dividends as ordinary income and tax it at a low flat rate (scrap deductions/credits, carried interest, capital gains rates, etc), fund infrastructure on consumption based taxes (gasoline tax and tolls for roads, tunnels and bridges for example). We also need to raise interest rates, scrap capital gains taxes and institute more consumption based taxes to incentivize Americans to spend less and save more.

This would eliminate a lot of waste, bloat and inefficiency. If taxes aren't a consideration for corporations, then cash would be invested in projects with highest expected return or get distributed to shareholders as dividends. This would eliminate the double taxation that you mistakenly think has to do with salaries which are paid on a pre-tax basis but actually has to do with the fact that dividends are paid out of a company's earnings after they have been taxed at the 35% corporate rate and then are taxed again. That's double taxation - no question about it. And by the way, companies pay payroll tax on bonuses too. I'm not sure where you get your information from but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about here - not that surprising of course. That's why investors prefer cash be spent on positive NPV projects that increase capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. There would be little or no incentive to hoard cash and plenty of pressure to distribute retained earnings if there isn't a better use ofr the cash. You could implement a tax on excess retained earnings if that was a real problem. Additionally, on top of the direct, 1st order benefits mentioned above, companies wouldn't have to waste millions and millions of dollars on tax lawyers and planners trying to figure out the most tax-efficient use for cash.

 

[Spartanmack]

the other canard floating around is that tax breaks fuel job growth.

That's a myth. Even spartanhack's favorite global warming-denying website doesn't fall for that nonsense.

There are a number of studies on this topic. My tax law professor used to tell us that the only consistent thing employers did when they received tax breaks was consolidate/merge/acquire competitors, or buy out employee contracts & lay them off! Here's an article on the topic. Another. Link to the study.

Tax cuts have the opposite effect of what we're constantly told by the GOP! It's INSANE!!!

I think the real, and only logical result of tax cuts and lower tax rates for the top income earners is that cash comes out of circulation and is hoarded, leading to greater income inequality (which we've seen), and slower economic growth overall. There's simply no reason anyone needs that much cash, even if they've "earned it" by "hard work" (as they claim). And once they have it, it sits there, in trusts, whale-sized retirement accounts, or overseas bank accounts... it doesn't circulate back into the economy... it doesn't "create jobs."

That's because these tax breaks and tax incentives are one-time, transitory benefits. It's been demonstrated that permanent and longer term recurring incentives do spur investment - like how ACRS and MACRS did result in large increases in PP&E investment. That is undeniable. But companies hoarding cash or using it for M&A, one time special dividends or buyouts are just examples of companies behaving rationally within the constraints of a tax code that creates perverse incentives. This shouldn't surprise anyone except michchump and others who think the answer to everything is higher taxes and more regulation. The fact that politicians pursue poorly designed benefits isn't proof that fundamentally reforming a horribly inefficient tax code won't transform the way companies deploy capital. It clearly will.

And I'm not a heartland institute guy - I've only ever been to their site once when I did a google search to disprove Sbee's assertion that the Heritage Foundation once argued that smoking wasn't bad for people. Of course they didn't, that was the Heartland Institute that you mistakenly believe i read or follow.

 

[Michchamp]

Bump.

Dennis Hastert now facing four "credible" allegations of sex abuse from guys he knew in high school. and he's said he doesn't deserve to be charged for anything because the harm to his reputation is punishment enough. that's being "tough on crime!"

I kinda wonder if ironically among the players in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton was the least perverted, least depraved, and most normal guy in the room?

 

[grandy]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...is-hastert-faces-sentencing-chicago/83584440/

Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison for bank fraud case linked to sexual abuse allegations. Also fined $250k and must register as a sex offender.

 

[Michchamp]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...is-hastert-faces-sentencing-chicago/83584440/

Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison for bank fraud case linked to sexual abuse allegations. Also fined $250k and must register as a sex offender.

but remember: Clinton was the scumbag for getting a blow job and saying he had received no blow job.

 

[KAWDUP]

but remember: Clinton was the scumbag for getting a blow job and saying he had received no blow job.

It's never the actual transgression, it is the lie told afterward under oath that gets you the "scumbag" title.

Just ask Martha Stewart.

 

[Michchamp]

It's never the actual transgression, it is the lie told afterward under oath that gets you the "scumbag" title.

Just ask Martha Stewart.

who calls Martha Stewart a scumbag?

 

[KAWDUP]

who calls Martha Stewart a scumbag?

OK mister semantics. She's not a scumbag. I was figuratively equating "Scumbag" to jailbird. Was just using your word, ya tool.

 

[Michchamp]

OK mister semantics. She's not a scumbag. I was figuratively equating "Scumbag" to jailbird. Was just using your word, ya tool.

the actual saying I think you're alluding to is "it's not the crime, it's the cover up."
.

not "it's the lie told under oath that makes you a scumbag"

.

.

ya tool.

 

[Spartanmack]

OK mister semantics. She's not a scumbag. I was figuratively equating "Scumbag" to jailbird. Was just using your word, ya tool.

Martha Stuart is a scumbag of the highest order. She was absolutely, 100% guilty of insider trading and she lied continuously about it and got off with a slap on the wrist because she is rich and powerful and has rich and powerful friends. I've also heard that she's an insatiable mynx but that's just rumor and even if it's true, doesn't make her a scumbag - I just thought people might like to know that about her.

 

[Spartanmack]

the actual saying I think you're alluding to is "it's not the crime, it's the cover up."
.

not "it's the lie told under oath that makes you a scumbag"

.

.

ya tool.

That's a stupid saying. It's the crime AND the cover up but I don't think adultery is an actual crime. Either way, being a serial philanderer makes you a scumbag - lying about it under oath makes you criminal. Either one makes you unfit to be President.

 

[KAWDUP]

the actual saying I think you're alluding to is "it's not the crime, it's the cover up."
.

not "it's the lie told under oath that makes you a scumbag"

.

.

ya tool.

Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress, not for getting a blowjob. For that he is a scumbag so I'm not really alluding to your stated interpretation.

ya tool!