Uh, is “country first” still the rallying cry?

And what Wall Street types will tell you is “you don’t want to lose good people.”

another great post ian

as I have said from the start, you do NOT want to give money to the very people who have stolen it, you do NOT want to give any authority or ability to those who crashed it

yet we have, we will and we do

Now THAT was a righteous rant!

Country first? And which country would that be? Lichtenstein maybe? Or one of the Caribbean isles?

sorry, ian. where are my manners? There’s quite the slugfest going on tweety between mr. rogers and bob shrum!

also, trying to find just the right trading places movie quote to describe these jerks in your post.

Randolph Duke: Money isn’t everything, Mortimer.
Mortimer Duke: Oh, grow up.
Randolph Duke: Mother always said you were greedy.
Mortimer Duke: She meant it as a compliment.

This wall street attitude just blows my mind.

So how do you propose to bring about lower compensations? Legislate it?

I would say if they are taking money from the fed they would be bound by a preset multiple

For sure, if the govt’s footing the bill. But what about those who aren’t sucking at the taxpayer teet?

Amazingly, if I steal a piece of chewing gum and get caught you can bet I am going to jail.

Again, the financial industry as a whole has created no value, no profits,

I can’t resist another quote from Trading Places:

Mortimer Duke: Now, some of our clients are speculating that the price of gold will rise in the future. We have other clients who are speculating that the price of gold is going to fall. They’ve placed their orders with us and we buy or sell their gold for them.

Randolph Duke: Tell him the good part.

Mortimer Duke: The good part is that no matter whether our clients make money, or lose money, Duke & Duke get the commissions.

Randolph Duke: Well, what do you think, Valentine?

Billy Ray Valentine: Sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies.

Randolph Duke: I told you he’d understand.

they can pay whatever they want

I would make top pay part of the shareholders vote, I am not sure if that’s done already or not

I would say one a firm gave more then some multiple for compensation there should be some kind of sdded income tax

In letters to nine major banks that will receive $125 billion of taxpayer funds, Chairman Waxman requested information on their compensation and bonus plans in 2008.

[Citigroup, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, Wells Fargo]

from the letter to Citigroup:

Earlier this month, the Treasury Department announced plans to invest $125 billion of
taxpayer funds in nine major banks, including yours, as an emergency measure to rebuild depleted capital. According to recent public filings, these nine banks have spent or reserved $108 billion for employee compensation and bonuses in the first nine months of 2008, nearly the same amount as last year.

Some experts have suggested that a significant percentage o f this compensation could
come in year-end bonuses and t hat the size o f the bonuses will be significantly enhanced as a result o f the infusion of taxpayer funds. According to one analyst, “Had it not been for the government’s help in refinancing their debt t hey may not have had t he cash to pay bonuses.

Press accounts report that the size of the bonuses could exceed $6 billion at some firms receiving federal assistance.

While I understand the need to pay the salaries of employees, I question the
appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers j us t injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars i n bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry’s worst years on record. As one newspaper recently reported, “critics of investment banks have questioned why firms continue to siphon off billions of dollars of bank earnings into bonus pools rather than using the funds to shore up the capital position of the crisis-stricken institutions.

To assist the Committee’s investigation into this issue, I request that you provide the
following information and documents for your company as well as any affiliates or subsidiaries:

1. For each year from 2006 to 2008, the total compensation and average compensation per employee, paid or projected to be paid to all personnel, broken down by salaries, bonuses (cash and equity), and benefits; and a description o f the reasons for the year-to-year changes in these amounts.

2. For each year from 2006 to 2008, the number o f employees who were paid, or are
projected to be paid, more t han $500,000 in total compensation; the total compensation
paid or projected to be pai d to these employees, broken down by salaries, bonuses (cash
and equity), and benefits; and a description o f the reasons for the year-to-year changes in these amounts.

3. For each year from 2006 to 2008, the total compensation paid or projected to be paid to the ten highest paid employees, broken down by salaries, bonuses (cash and equity), and benefits; and a description o f the reasons for the year-to-year changes in these amounts.

4. Documents sufficient to show all policies governing the granting o f the bonuses to the
groups o f employees referenced in items (1) to (3).

Please produce the requested information to the Committee no later than November 10,
2008. To the extent t hat 2008 year-end bonuses have not been finalized by that time, you should notify the Committee as soon as those bonuses are determined and supplement your response with updated information and responsive documents.

As for the “best”, they should be grateful no one is seriously talking about clawing back their previous bonuses; bonuses based on systematic fraud and overstatement of profits through financial chicanery.

but how are they gonna pay their attorney fees when the investigations begin to churn out indictments?

I just want to spit.

Isn’t it interesting that Obama chose to forego a career on wall street and chose to become a community organizer instead? Like he’d really like to make a positive difference for people?

Isn’t it interesting that McCain chose to make his career by hanging with the homies like Phil Gramm, and Charles Keating, who only choose to line their own pockets?

Some sort of law is going to have to be figured out to reign in salaries in financial firms

this is the law that congress wrote and passed. there was no serious attempt made to prevent this kind of thing.

The industry is overpaid for the value it brings to the economy.

i’m pretty sure that this is not the measure used - the value the industry brings to the politicians who are responsible for writing the laws is, i think, closer to the mark.

…hard core progressive taxation with no breaks or loopholes has to come back for people making more than about 200,000 a year.

Not sure if we ever really had that, but it sounds good. Top rate was 77% in the seventies but nobody paid it, we used to call the tax code the “accountants’ full employment law.”

Taxes should be much more progressive. My taxable income is a little more than half of what it was when I was gainfully employed, yet I’m still in the same tax bracket - and paying 10% more than Bill Gates pays on his Microsoft dividends!

Digg It Ian

I just completely disassembled your car down to the frame and lost half of the parts.

I can haz bonus now?

During most of the ’30s and ’40s (Depression and WWII) the top rate was in the ’90s and went as high as 94%

I suppose Waxman intends to embarrass them into paying less. That worked out well with Fuld.

Tie it to the average pay of all other employees, say no more than 5 times average employee pay. Or tax them 90% on anything over 5 times. I do respect your opinions Ecahnonomics and read them with interest also I learn an lot from what you have to impart. BUt as I am not an economist nor have I slept in a hotel recently, I have only my unschooled opinion however I do say fuck the bastards and tax the hell out of em.

I think this is going to get “Legislated” on Nov. 4th. There may be a huge backlash by voters against congress people who voted for the bailout. I think the voters are mad and have not forgotten about the huge salaries bankers are receiving that have benefited from the bailout plan. It could be the November Surprise with a huge shift in congress as a result of voters deciding to do a big vote the bums out action in the voting booths across the country.

Obama did not choose a career in community organizing - he left community organizing after 3 years. He’s choosen a career in politics. If these “bonuses” bother you as they do me - then why not hold Obama at least partially responsible for the bail out bill he pushed through?

and while we’re at it - let’s take a look at people like Rubin, who Obama has chosen to advise him. how much better is Rubin than Gramm? they both stink in my book.

Abd who do you think would vote for such a proposal? Shareholders? Congress?

How steep a graduated income tax do you think Obama will propose, congress will pass?

The point of my Qs is to stop empty railing against something you consider unfair and start thinking practically how you would go about accomplishing it.

that, i think, is the charitable explanation. a cynic might think something else.

If voters are mad about the bailout, then they must vote against incumbent Ds, which you know will not happen.

Guess you missed my invisible snark alert.

The industry is overpaid for the value it brings to the economy.

Ian, I about fell out of my chair laughing at this. Surely there is a prize somewhere for the biggest understatement of the year. A Pulitzer for Euphemism, or something.

That’s an interesting idea, but if you look at the record of the votes you’ll see that the vast majority of Representatives in the few districts which are actually competitive voted against it, for the very reason you suggest.

The point of my Qs is to stop empty railing against something you consider unfair and start thinking practically how you would go about accomplishing it.

you are, of course, quite right.

i have no good answer - except to attempt to fix the blame where i think it belongs. perhaps if there is a political price to be paid for this kind sell out, our politicians would think twice before selling us out.

So figure out why that is, assuming that it is (I agree that it is so, but asserting it is not the same as providing evidence), and devise a program to correct it.

“They may be smart, but as the saying goes, it takes genius to really really screw something up beyond belief.”

Ted Kaczynski and Ted Bundy are/were smart.

Just to be clear, my spit is directed at the fat cats, not your comment. :]

yeah, rubin not a shining beacon of fiduciary responsibility.

McCain is a train wreck when it comes to wall street reform, so I gotta go with the reformer I got (Obama), not with the one I wish I had…

I agree with so? let them leave. Let them have their little hissy fits and stamp their feet and go ahead - leave. Where are you going to find another job in this economy that will pay for your $10,000 martinis and $6,000 shower curtains?

I say the same thing about professional athletes. The last time one screamed that he was being disrespected because he was only offered $44 million I said good, go, take that fake college degree with you and try to find another job that will pay that.

The sky is pink in these people’s world. They have no idea.

“Party is the madness of many, for the gain of a few.”

So how do you propose to bring about lower compensations? Legislate it?

The simplest idea I’ve heard is one Teddy Roosevelt would probably appreciate and one John McCain would hate and that is “if it’s too big to fail, then it must divest”.

Firms so big their failure would harm America by forcing the government to step in with tax dollars must divest, divide to survive.

Then, let the market work and let failures fail (good people and all).

The big question with that approach is the one we face with Lehman today, what happens to the firm’s assets. Do they go through Ch 11 and sell everything off piece by piece or seek recapitalization under government conservatorship or what?

lol. should have seen that.

my snark meter is apparently still busted. *g*

If they can afford to pay bonuses then perhaps transaction charges are in order (Which would probably be passed on) and a bailout tax that is on those whose asses were saved by the bailout. These would start at x and multiply significantly.

On CPAN last night i watched the whole debate in Pennsylvania between Patrick Murphy and his republican and independent opponents. All they did through out the debate was hammer him on his vote to pass the bailout plan. it was clearly the center of the debate. Murphy did do a very good job of standing up to them and defending his votes. The republican was at a huge disadvantage as he had to rely on standard GOP talking points that did’nt stand up to Murphy’s aggressive responses. The independent candidate was sort of a very elderly Ron Paul type of character.

understood (about the direction of your spit *g*).

and am not suggesting you change your support - just that you consider directing some of your anger at the politicians who made this not just possible, but also likely to happen.

yes, the fat cats are once again raiding the treasury. but someone gave them the keys.

OK, I’ll stop holding back. Here’s my model for why Wall St. is so unconscionably (sp?) profitable, and thus why compensations are so high. In the old days, they used to be a formal cartel with fixed commission rates for trading, and had more information. Fixed commissions ended about mid-1970s. Price/share of trading large blocks of stock fell from $.25 to $.02 within a decade or so. Somewhat compensated for by pickup in volume in trading.

But then the new area of profit stemmed from leverage, which works miracles when the market is going up, but is a black hole when it’s falling. But all the rewards accrue to those who do well today, with no thought for tomorrow.

If that’s the appropriate diagnosis, I’m not really sure of what to do about it. Clearly regulation around risk is a major part. But, as the law of the unintended outcome rules supreme, any new regulation must be carefully crafted.

Been looking around, but don’t see any trustbusters. Do you?

I agree that the bailout is intensely unpopular. My point was that, despite that, it is not going to turn the vote.

Scarecrow upstairs

You can’t pay enormous salaries and bonuses if you don’t have the revenue stream or profits. How bout some wage and price controls imposed on Wall Street by congress for financial institutions which accept US taxpayer’s assistance? Those institutions must be audited quarterly by the GAO. Profits shall be limited until the loans are repaid IN FULL.

Ian, the problem is at the board level isn’t it?

My friend Al - who I’ve commented about previously and has told me years ago that the indicators told him the economy was going to tank - told me the problem is in the boardroom

I.e. you have Montgomery Burns the CEO of the Springfield Nuclear Plant and Mr. Slate of The Slate Rock and Gravel Company and Cosmo G. Spacely of Spacely Space Sprockets all on each others boards giving each other bonuses and golden parachutes - company be damned

Change the names around to actual names and companies, and you have for example Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG … etc

Don’t know about those specific companies but you get the point

You ask too much “The point of my Qs is to stop empty railing against something you consider unfair and start thinking practically how you would go about accomplishing it.” of the average poster at FDL.

Such bonuses are taxed as they are ‘income’, so such is a legislative issue; I’m sure the Congress would love to add even more byzantine confusion to the tax code. They will make a good ‘talking point’ when it comes to ‘taxing the rich’.

If you want to see something scary, go look who are the Social Security ‘Trustees‘. And think of how many people are affected by SS programs.

If voters are mad about the bailout, then they must vote against incumbent Ds, which you know will not happen.

The bailout/rescue was intended to buy toxic assets on which nobody could assess a value. That it turned into something else is not the Democrats fault. Ask Paulson why he’s letting them do this.

Further, ask why the Bush administration (perhaps the real root of all Evil) why they waited til they put out their 3-page proposal instead of letting Congress participate a bit earlier. This kind of problem/crisis is very difficult to handle properly in a hurry. Paulson gave Congress very little time to add their 2 cents.

Any impact it has on the vote won’t be know until after the election, but i do think it will have an impact on a few races. I don’t think Pat Murphy is threatened by it.

Wall streeters feeling mistreated.
http://www.americablog.com/200.....ulted.html

The markets have not stabilized since tossing all that money at Wall Street and it will only be a bumping ride to the bottom probably around 5000 or 6000. Government needs to control the financial sector because they are and have created the bubbles and now we are paying the piper. Out with them!

Been looking around, but don’t see any trustbusters. Do you?

Just crossing my fingers at this point. It’s still a bit early in this Wall Street crisis and late in the presidential campaign to be hearing any politicians with new policies on that issue.

If the crisis had happened earlier they all have to have said something by now.

probably stupid ideas, but will throw them out for your take:

1) v small tax on buy/sell transactions.

2) v high tax on short term capital gains - the shorter the term, the higher the tax. the inverse for ability to write off losses: if short term loss, then can only write off a portion of loss.

my imaginary goals:

1) to increase long term thinking/view and decrease use of leverage.

2) to decrease trading volumes - and therefore decrease amount of commission income.

You been roamin’ around in mah brain again?

The bailout/rescue was intended to buy toxic assets on which nobody could assess a value. That it turned into something else is not the Democrats fault. Ask Paulson why he’s letting them do this.

the bill that was passed was written by the Democrats. It is their bill and it was always the plan not to constrain bonuses. it wasn’t that big a secret.

There are a few ways to do it.

1) (ideal) 80% tax rate on income over 250K, no loopholes, including capital gains, etc… 90% at 1 million plus, 95% at 5 million plus. Not just for them, for everyone.

2) Financial transactions tax at a fairly high level. After all most of their profits are illusionary anyway, and will have to be given back next time they screw up, and the government is the one who insures them, in effect.

3) straight up salary cap.

Exec comp was never meaningfully constrained, aye.

if that’s the diagnosis, why not just go back to the cartel days? Sure it means the cost of trading goes up, but really, so what?

80% tax rate on income over 250K, no loopholes, including capital gains, etc

On a straight $250K net income the tax would be $200K. That’s quite a bite. Would certainly be a good reason for firms not to pay that kind of money.

A Morgan Stanley investment banker in Europe, speaking on the condition that he wouldn’t be identified, said his bonus last year was five times his salary and that he would quit if he didn’t get a bonus this year, unless his salary was doubled.

I don’t know, this sounds like a very experienced, professional fuckup, not your run of the mill or junior ones. Fuckuppery like that you can’t find just anywhere. I think he has a legitimate argument. Morgan Stanley didn’t wander to the edge of bankruptcy. It needed direction and leadership to push it and the financial system to the point of collapse. Expertise like that doesn’t come cheap.

lol.

Evidently there is in America a set apart capitalist class structure and aristocracy that must be maintained no matter how failing the nature of performance shortfall and incompetence they turn in.

We are told Wall Street,corporate America and big American banking were going to collapse unless American taxpayers came up with around a trillion $$ just for the first round to inject into American private markets over past few weeks.

Now this? The word audacity expires when used to frame such personal responsibility push away and selfish,boorish conduct.

Clearly Wall Street,big banking and corporate executive suite bonus plans have become based on a line of logic and thinking that has little to do with earned merit,competent job performance or trackable positive job performance.

The word pathetic becomes broken describing these people and the conduct they are so brazen about.

marginal tax rate?

I had an idea about a graduated tax on capital gains. Very high tax on cg realized on shares held less than a certain period to low or almost no tax on cg realized on shares held at least 10 years and sold after retirement, depending upon net gain realized.

It needed direction and leadership to push it and the financial system to the point of collapse.

in that case, the biggest bonus of all should go to bush.

I like the transaction fee. I forget what the exact number is but on any given day a majority of stock trades are made by a small number of hedge funds.

The first line was from Ian’s comment but the block quote icon didn’t work.

What’s a marginal tax rate?

I’ve always thought that would be an excellent revenue stream.

i think hugh has been saying for awhile now that taxes aren’t about economic policy, they are about social engineering.

so, if i could engineering one thing about our society - it would be to start thinking long term.

i guess that means you don’t like a the different tax rates for short vs. long term capital gains (or losses).

or maybe a transaction fee would on it’s own do the trick without complicating the tax code further?

Oh, I’ve never doubted that taxes are a form of social engineering. Short term thinking by the govt and financial industry has always driven me batshit crazy. Been sayin’ it for a long time - what we need is a different world view and a new vision. The bozos in charge have a world view warped beyond belief and their vision extends no further than the close of the market each day or the next election.

no, no, marginal. You pay 80% on the amount OVER 250.

And, of course, index all numbers to inflation so there’s no bracket creep.

Actually I liked both suggestions. You are right though that I think that tax policy is social engineering and what we have seen in the last 30 years is a redistribution of income to the already wealthy. As a result we have seen a steady undermining of the middle class, and the money directed to the rich pumped into and wasted on a succession of paper schemes and bubbles.

Here’s what I’d say to them, Ian: “Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.”

There are tons of kids in college today who are majoring in finance and wondering if/when they’ll get a chance. I’m certain there are any number of junior (and some mid-level and even senior) execs who believe they can do this stuff right.

These asses screwed things up badly. If they think no salary is better than 25% of current and no bonus, then let them quit, and oh-by-the-way, I want estate taxes back at confiscatory levels. Enjoy it, jerk. Your kids won’t.

And when we’re structuring bonuses in the future, they need to be tied to realized profits, not paper profits!

in the short term the wealthy and the middle class (and the working class and the poor) seem to have very different interests. it’s when i try to think long term that our interests start aligning.

so, i wonder, if there were things we could do to get the elite thinking long term…. would our interests begin to align in their thinking too?

that’s the short version of lots of time spend attempting to think while raking leaves yesterday.

gotcha. Thanks. Obviously taxation ain’t my forte. Helps to read the material correctly too.

seven generations.

A repudiation of Keynesian economics in favour of Friedmaniac economics?

Exactly. In mah brain again, damn.

I believe the British and German government bailouts contained a provision limiting the compensation to any executive of any recipient institution to the equivalent of 680,000 dollars. Since the cost of living is higher in those two contries, why not amend the bailout in the US to this upper limit, or is this too “Marist”?

A repudiation of Keynesian economics in favour of Friedmaniac economics?

Yes, because the economics that worked weren’t considered sexy enough.

You can’t get it by a crony capitalist like Paulson.

Actually, about the best anyone seems to be able to do is five generations: from their grandparents to their grandchildren.

Given the financial sector’s focus on next month’s/next quarter’s results, five generation thinking would be a big improvement.

1) (ideal) 80% tax rate on income over 250K, no loopholes, including capital gains, etc… 90% at 1 million plus, 95% at 5 million plus. Not just for them, for everyone.

I agree with a lot of what you say in your posts, but you’ve got to be kidding about this.

Sure, the wealthy should pay more than what they have been paying, but giving up 80% or more of your income is over the top.

The highest marginal rate in the late 1950s was about 90%. We were doing pretty well as an economy back then.

This is late but worth thinking deeply about:
New York budget faces 47 billion dollar abyss: governor

“New York state relies heavily on the city and particularly on taxation of the Wall Street finance industry, which is in severe turmoil.

In ordinary times, about 20 percent of state revenues derive from Wall Street, growing to 30 percent in the fourth fiscal quarter, when bonuses are paid out.”

Wow. just wow. I read that - they should read some of the responses over there.

Heh.heh– I welcome them here to my humble calling center — we’ll hire anybody who can make it through the training. Good luck to them dealing with all the people just like them who feel entitled to whatever they want. And I’m sure they’ll enjoy the cursing and name-calling when they are required to tell them ‘no.’
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

or is this too “Marist”?

Hmmm. Freudian slip? I believe the Marist Brothers here in my city do take a vow of poverty — no doubt the execs in question would so consider your proposal…

The bailout/rescue was intended to buy toxic assets on which nobody could assess a value. That it turned into something else is not the Democrats fault. Ask Paulson why he’s letting them do this. — MarkH

the bill that was passed was written by the Democrats. It is their bill and it was always the plan not to constrain bonuses. it wasn’t that big a secret.

Democrats HAD to write the bill since Paulson only gave them an outline of what he wanted.

Democrats HAD to take what Paulson offered because they were told the imminent collapse of the economy gave them no time to start from scratch.

Democrats did a remarkable job of getting it written with some big improvements in the short time it was done.

Some Democrats DID WANT to constrain bonuses and that’s why there’s language in the bill to do that. It was Sec. Paulson who said many firms wouldn’t participate in selling toxic assets unless those limits were eased.

Also, it was Repubs in the House who refused to get it passed first time around. If the crisis has exploded then it would’ve been on them.

First, I find it interesting that many on this blog think corporations are NOT people and yet taxes on them is still considered okay.

Second, I don’t understand how Liberals can consider various tax rates for citizens of this ‘equal opportunity’ country to be good.

Third, I like the idea of shifting thought to a tax system which urges people to think a bit longer term. But, if government is going to just govern and not dominate, then how can you do that? Only if by their short term activities do they harm society.

Where does this lead?

One tax rate for everyone. None for corporations.
Higher rate for short-term gain, lower rate for longer-term gain.

In the past couple of years I’ve suggested a one flat rate individual tax with a big deduction for Cost Of Living. Adding the time-line makes it more complicated.

I see a reason to tax shifts of wealth from cash in the local economy to investments or vice versa. Shortening the time an investment can be cashed out & returned to investment would encourage keeping investments longer. What’s the time now, something like 90 days to roll over investments before taxation occurs on gains?

If you always tax gains when an investment is sold you would seriously impact the fluidity and effectiveness of the markets. And, if you let people keep rolling over til they’re dead, then you are essentially letting wealth remain in a bank where it’s of use, but never taxed.

Exactly what uses can stock & bonds be put to when it’s never cashed out? Maybe that should be limited in some way.

I’d prefer to let people “play” with their money in companies or investments and only tax gains when they’re cashing it out to return it to the real economy and their pockets. At that point a percentage which redistributes enough wealth to prevent damage to the real economy and enough to run government is all that’s needed.

Of course, some of this may seem like silly talk as the world trade revolution develops.

i almost don’t know where to start on this one.

1) i don’t see why the dems had to do anything they didn’t think was in the best interest of the country.
2) i don’t think the bail out bill was in the best interest of the country
3) folks here could have written a better bill in less time - but that doesn’t even really matter because while paulson et al. were yelling fire, they haven’t been so quick to actually use the $ congress gave them. so it’s clear that paulson was lying from the start. (btw, listen to the conference call on my link above you doubt that).

i wish the bill had failed to pass - and if the Rs had succeeded in that, i would have applauded them.

i’ll just address your first point:

First, I find it interesting that many on this blog think corporations are NOT people and yet taxes on them is still considered okay.

no one is forced to form a corporation, but there are big benefits for doing so. the biggest one is that it limits personal liability. corporate taxes are the cost of this benefit.

wow.

Well before we spend anymore time talking about taxes in this country, maybe we should make sure everybody is literate with regard to how marginal graduated taxation works, because this is evidently a barrier for entirely too many people.

It’s not 80% of your income, just like if you’ve paid any attention to your current taxes you’re not paying the rate of whatever your tax-bracket is on your gross income, just the portion of it that rests in the bounds of that bracket.

“One tax rate for everyone. None for corporations.
Higher rate for short-term gain, lower rate for longer-term gain.”

This is actually an idea that Friedman (Chicago School) had MANY years ago only he called a guaranteed income.

“Second, I don’t understand how Liberals can consider various tax rates for citizens of this ‘equal opportunity’ country to be good.”

Was Teddy Roosevelt a ‘liberal’?

“Third, I like the idea of shifting thought to a tax system which urges people to think a bit longer term”;
THAT is the idea behind ‘home ownership’; hasn’t worked out too well has it? Don’t get me wrong, I concur for thinking on a longer term but when you have a populace who can’t remember the history of the last 50 years and a business community who is only interested in short term profits, well…….

It is the codification of corporations rights as equal to that of a living breathing person when they are nothing but a ‘legal entity’ that is the root of MANY problems in this society. This is something the Founding Fathers (Washington,Jefferson) warned against and until the U.S.C. was changed earlier last century Title 1 specifically stated that ‘persons’ was defined as a living being.

It’s not 80% of your income, just like if you’ve paid any attention to your current taxes you’re not paying the rate of whatever your tax-bracket is on your gross income, just the portion of it that rests in the bounds of that bracket.

My fault for not being clearer. I understand marginal tax rates and didn’t make that obvious.

I was trying to state that taxing 80% of income over $250,000 is wrong.