Obama: Taxes are about fairness

I was planning on voting for Obama earlier this year because i'm not a big fan of McCain. But recently, Obama's views on taxes and government programs, has scared the living crap out of me.

In Ohio yesterday, Obama told a plumber that we need to start "spreading the wealth around." And in an interview with charlie gibson, he was confronted with the fact that when reagan and clinton lowered taxes, revenues increased and the economy propspered. Obama's response? He merely said that raising taxes are a matter of "fairness." Rather than discussing economic growth or invoke empirical data to bolster his points, Obama constantly resorts to a moral argument on favor of wealth redistribution. Moreover, the democratic congress is already planning on drastically increasing government spending on welfare and other social programs.

If you're a working professional, voting for Obama would be a disaster. Yes, he's smart, articulate, and different. But his policies will destroy this country's economy.

 

There is a mass concentration of wealth in this country and with the resources we have, it is absurd that people should have to worry about such basic things as housing, health care, and education; whatever mechanism we've had (call it 'capitalism', 'free markets', etc) has failed.

Whether or not lowering tax rates causes in increase in revenue is a long-standing debate in economics; it all boils down to there being too many confounding variables.

If you have only recently been hearing Obama's thoughts on fiscal policy, I'm wondering where you've been for the past year.....heck, I'm wondering if you are even familiar with the fundamental platforms of the dems v gop

 
yesman:
There is a mass concentration of wealth in this country and with the resources we have, it is absurd that people should have to worry about such basic things as housing, health care, and education; whatever mechanism we've had (call it 'capitalism', 'free markets', etc) has failed.

I'd submit to you (paraphrased from the immortal words of G.K. Chesterton) the the problem isn't that the free market has been tried and found wanting, it is that it hasn't been tried.

Do some research on the poverty statistics in this country. Abject poverty no longer exists. Poverty in America now means you only have one car and one television. The official poverty line for a U.S. family of four in 2008 is $21,200. Compare that to the fact that FIFTY PERCENT of the world's population survives on $2 a day or less. Not the bottom one percent. Not the Bottom Billion. The bottom FIFTY FUCKING PERCENT. Over 3 billion people.

The only answer to world hunger is capitalism and the free market. Do some research on micro-loans and the impact they have on the 3rd world. Handouts are never the answer; investment is.

Americans need to get real and admit that no one in this country is poor anymore. We are just at different levels of wealth relative to the world around us. This myopic focus on America as the center of the universe is costing us precious capital.

True free market capitalists believe that human beings are intrinsically good and sometimes do evil things. Re-distributionist big government types believe that human beings are intrinsically evil and sometimes do good.

In other words, true capitalists (myself included) believe that if government gets out of the way and stops taxing so much, we could afford to better help the poor on our own. Guys like Obama believe that people must be forced to help one another, and the best way to accomplish that is the wholesale theft known as taxation.

 

ChelseaFC85, i would like to believe that, but it seems to be wishful thinking. Do you really think he will move to the center with a liberal congress urging him for higher taxes and more government programs? Even Bill Clinton, who is a moderate democrat, succumbed to the liberal temptation and gave us the biggest tax increase in U.S. history in 1993.

 

chicago has a lot of liberal / behavioral economists (becker, thayler, levitt) - it's not purely libertarian.

the question of how much influence congress will have on the obama administration is more interesting - a lot of people are worried that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will steamroll Obama, though I'm not sure of their positions (eg - programs they support and how they propose funding), so I can't comment much further.

But again - jjc: how is this news to you?

 

i guess i'm shocked that so many finance professionals, especially in NYC, are supporting Obama, given that his policies will devastate the economy and hence have an extremely negative effect on the city. Chicago support is understandable since this is Obama's home turf.

By the way, Becker has endorsed McCain. He recently signed a letter condemning Obama's economic program.

Obama's main economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a smart guy, but he also adheres to the redistributionist philosophy, which is extremely disturbing.

 

Nothing proves the point of the liberal hypocrisy of helping the poor more than Joe Biden's tax returns over the past ten years. For someone who really cares about the poor and wants to take more of your money to help the poor and make things more "fair" (awww, I feel like hugging a puppy now...), he sure doesn't let his checkbook do much talking.

The following are this millionaire clayhead's charitable donations over the past ten years:

1998 Income - $215,432 Charitable Donations - $195 1999 Income - $210,797 Charitable Donations - $120 2000 Income - $219,953 Charitable Donations - $360 2001 Income - $220,712 Charitable Donations - $360 2002 Income - $227,811 Charitable Donations - $260 2003 Income - $231,375 Charitable Donations - $260 2004 Income - $234,271 Charitable Donations - $380 2005 Income - $321,379 Charitable Donations - $380 2006 Income - $248,459 Charitable Donations - $380 2007 Income - $319,853 Charitable Donations - $995 (easy, Big Spender...)

Total Income - $2,450,042 Total Charitable Donations - $3,690

Way to lead by example, douchebag. I wouldn't watch two monkeys fuck for thirty-seven hundred dollars.

 

LizzieJane, i agree. a flat tax of 25% across the board would be ideal. privatize social security, cut spending on government entitlement programs like welfare, get rid of deductions for married couples and families, and a flat rate would be able to generate the same amount of tax revenues as the current progressive system. the economy will experience a boom that we have never seen before.

 

I am not a pure-capitalist or a pure free-marketer; I've never claimed to be. Humans may or may not be inherently good, but they surely are inherently irrational. Pragmatic economists who are interested in results (Becker included) acknowledge a need for some degree of government intervention. Free markets are a good foundation, but there are inherently winners and losers. When we live in a country as rich as ours, there is no reason to not have a safety net to ensure people have their basic needs met. America is the only industrialized country without universal health coverage; that is deplorable. Edmundo - you have a very naive view of poverty in America if you think 1 car and 1 TV mean you've escaped it.

Labor Economists have consistently shown that the #1 determinant of a person's lifetime income is their parents' income - this is not a hallmark of a mobile society that provides opportunity; wealth doesn't 'flow down'. I don't care if the rest of the world subsists at a lesser level than impoverished Americans - we as a country can provide more to our own citizens, and then to the world. There is enough that people shouldn't have to live without basic needs.

The ultimate hypocrisy is the republican establishment which touts itself as 'pro-business' but fails to understand the nature of business - which is investment. Better healthcare coverage, stronger public schools (that are not undermined by vouchers), a smarter foreign policy that acknowledges our military is a limited resource - these are the types of investments that pay-off huge, but aren't easily laid down on accounting statements.

By failing to invest in society through fair laws and taxes, Republicans are building up more costs - throw convicts in jail instead of giving them decent education when they're kids; clean up a shattered city after a hurricane instead of having a proper pre-response system; fight against realistic sex education (resulting in more unwanted pregnancies), then condemn abortion; tell people they're covered because they can go to an ER - instead of paying for modest primary care; build up exorbitant amounts of debt, overextend the military, and give tax cuts to the rich - then give people a $600 handout to buy their votes when the economy is in shambles. These half-assed efforts are attacking the symptom, not the problem.

The majority of financiers I know are liberals because they are smart enough to go beyond basic Econ 101 and they realize that markets aren't perfect. In fact, the finance industry is predicated on markets being imperfect - if 'free markets' were truly efficient, we'd be out of a job. Whether or not you've patronized the tangent I've gone on, what's indisputable is that McCain is going to raise spending as well - the only difference between him and Obama is that Obama's honest and says how he's going to pay for it. Think outside the box

 

and Edmundo - consider that Biden has spent most of his life giving his time and energy to helping the less fortunate. He's a smart guy - probably could be a top tier banker /consultant/ exec raking in millions. Charity and good intentions can be measured in other means besides cash - I'm not suprised that I know that and you don't.

I don't think pure capitalists are evil - I think they have good intentions, they're just wrong.

 
yesman:
He's a smart guy - probably could be a top tier banker /consultant/ exec raking in millions.

and yesman - consider that Biden graduated near the bottom of his class in undergrad and law school (non targets!) - there is minimal chance he wouldve made it to a top tier bank or consulting firm - I'm not surprised that I know that and you don't

I don't think pure capitalists are evil - They have good intentions and ultimately they serve the most return for the most amount of people.

 

b4f - believe it or not, how you did in school isn't a perfect indicator of how good you'll be at your job. It's only been fairly recently (past 20 years) that bank hiring has started waxing so academic. Doing well in school helps you get the job, that's about it. You become an analyst/associate based on where you went and how you did in school, you become a senior person by doing the actual job well.

the arguement is ridiculous - McCain was a legacy shoe-in to the naval academy and graduated 4th from the bottom. Bush was a c-student at yale and got into HBS. John Kerry had worse grades at Yale than Bush (works both ways). In fact, the only exemplary scholar-politician in recent history is Bill Clinton - who you've already discredited. I work with (and have worked with) plenty of top-tier people at my BB who went to state schools and barely passed. Again - you're stuck in your Econ 101 textbook.

 

Ass-backwards, but well said.

As someone who used to own a financial planning firm that sometimes sold American health insurance to Canadians so they could escape the misery of universal health care, I suggest you get an opinion on that matter from someone outside the U.S. who has to deal with the inefficiency of it on a daily basis.

As for your comment about the fundamental need for public education, again the facts disagree with your liberal hypotheses. A little over 100 years ago, before the public education system, this country had a 98% literacy rate. In the century since the government monopolized education (unimpeded by vouchers, I might add), the literacy rate in this country has dropped to 68%, about on par with Uganda. To illustrate the free market in action, private schools achieve demonstrably better results than public schools and spend only 40% of the money on a per student basis that the public education system requires. Figures never lie and liars never figure.

As the wealthy son of a mailman (who worked two jobs as a car mechanic when he was done with his mail route), I humbly submit to you that the liberal economists you reference (probably public college professors themselves) could stand to think outside the box a little.

By the way, aren't you late for Biology?

 

funny - I am a canadian dual-citizen, and both my parents worked 2 jobs. Just because you had some clients that wanted out of the system doesn't mean the system is wholly bad Edmundo - representation does not imply causality. Since you are so in love with normative statements on efficiency, consider that if the system were as bad as you say it is, it probably wouldn't exist.

did you ever consider that the literacy rate has fallen becaue of the wave of immigration? have you considered that private schools are better because they're better funded and attract better teachers? (which is not to say public schools suck - they're just neglected). Most people can't afford private schools. Have you ever considered that there are beneficial factors at play besides the free market?

I didn't major in bio - I studied finance, math, and most importantly, econometrics (all at Wharton nonetheless - and I escaped with my liberal ideology in tact). I seem to understand what confounding variables are, and I can avoid making blanket statements about x causing y. and the liberal economists I'm talking about are Paul Krugman, George Stiglitz, Daniel Kahneman.....pretty seminal guys at Ivy League schools. In fact, probably the most important economists of this age.

am I late for bio? nope - just sitting at my terminal on the job.

 
LizzieJane:
Hey! Let's have a WSO debate! Y'all can "discuss" it until you're blue in the face and no one remembers the original question. Oh wait...

well, of course - what else are these boards for?

 

Yesman, I'm not trying to be a dick here (Lord knows I don't have to try, just ask anyone who knows me), but I knew the immigrant argument was coming before you even typed it.

The fact is that at the turn of the 20th century this was a country populated almost exclusively by immigrants. Very few Americans at the time were further than 3rd generation. The people of France donated the Statue of Liberty to us (notice I said the people of France, not the French government. A private collection was taken up to pay for it.) because we were such a bastion of immigrant opportunity. Still managed a 98% literacy rate.

As for the argument that private schools are better funded, click HERE for an explanation of the actual figures and the exposition of the fact that public schools get twice the money per student for less than half the results. If only neglecting the public schools were truly an option, this country would be a better place.

 

I don't think you're trying to be a dick; I think we're just both adamant.

Regarding the 98% literacy rate - are you really stipulating that 98% of legal adults in the US in 1908 could read english? Please cite this.

Public education. The link you sent is an excerpt from a report from November 1997. I will try to read the full document when I have time (it's 81 pages, not sure when that will be). At first glance, here are my thoughts:

Private schools are not a free market - there is an entrance cost that must be paid, and that entrance cost is the taxes that go first into public schools. A family still pays for public schools, even if they send their kids to private. This entrance cost supports my claim that private schools are able to attract choice students who, for broader socio-economic reasons, perform better. Costs can be maintained and better teachers can be attracted. However, this efficiency arguement deteriorates when you consider expanding the platform to all kids in need of education. Private schools are a niche market.

Both candidates agree (and I agree) that a key to improving school performance is to make the teaching profession more of a meritocracy, namely, through standardized testing administered by a 3rd party. Where McCain differs is in his support of school vouchers.

To be brief, his goal is to create a 'free market' for education. Yes, you're taking away that entrance cost, but I don't see what is to prevent the Darwinian course that will inevitably flow.

 

Haha - hug it out we shall. Market practitioners may or may not operate in an efficient paradigm, but I have faith we'll find a way to make a semblance of a spread no matter which of the swine is elected.

 

Edit - Please don't take any of this personally, I just reread it and realize I come off as quite angry...)

yesman - We've never had real capitalism. What we have is some bullshit welfare state where you are rewarded for failing and demonized for succeeding. And "free markets?" Been watching the news lately?

How on earth is it "fair" for someone to steal from me but unfair for me to want to keep what I earn? The income tax is the biggest crock of shit ever invented. You assume that the government owns 100% of my income, and can let me have whatever they feel like letting me have...when in fact I earn 100% of my income and thus shouldn't have it stolen from me by big government bureaucrats. But right, it's greedy to want to keep what you earn, but not greedy to want to steal from other people because they are more successful than you.

The saddest thing about Obama and his stupid fucking ideas is that he makes successful people seem like the enemy. The "rich," "corporate America," "the oil companies," etc are all fucking evil, but the lazy, jobless fucks being subsidized by the rich to continue being lazy, jobless fucks are the heroes.

Socialism doesn't work (see: France).

(By the way, I think McCain is just as big of a moron as Obama, so don't take this as some partisan rant. I'd almost rather have Obama elected at this point...)

 
cdw38:
Edit - Please don't take any of this personally, I just reread it and realize I come off as quite angry...)

yesman - We've never had real capitalism. What we have is some bullshit welfare state where you are rewarded for failing and demonized for succeeding. And "free markets?" Been watching the news lately?

How on earth is it "fair" for someone to steal from me but unfair for me to want to keep what I earn? The income tax is the biggest crock of shit ever invented. You assume that the government owns 100% of my income, and can let me have whatever they feel like letting me have...when in fact I earn 100% of my income and thus shouldn't have it stolen from me by big government bureaucrats. But right, it's greedy to want to keep what you earn, but not greedy to want to steal from other people because they are more successful than you.

The saddest thing about Obama and his stupid fucking ideas is that he makes successful people seem like the enemy. The "rich," "corporate America," "the oil companies," etc are all fucking evil, but the lazy, jobless fucks being subsidized by the rich to continue being lazy, jobless fucks are the heroes.

Socialism doesn't work (see: France).

(By the way, I think McCain is just as big of a moron as Obama, so don't take this as some partisan rant. I'd almost rather have Obama elected at this point...)

Some comments are coming quite scary to me. Even Mr Adam Smith cited functions and services that government should provide (and that have to be paid for): army, police, schools, hospitals... functions that are necessary for the general welfare, but that private inciative won't bother to finance (and yes, I include schools, a school in a crappy zone will never show a profit, but I still believe they are necessary).

You can add to that my favorite: I+D for very long run research (is NASA usefull? I hope it is, because you guys are sinking millions each year in it...).

 
mysizeisyoursize:
cdw38:
Edit - Please don't take any of this personally, I just reread it and realize I come off as quite angry...)

yesman - We've never had real capitalism. What we have is some bullshit welfare state where you are rewarded for failing and demonized for succeeding. And "free markets?" Been watching the news lately?

How on earth is it "fair" for someone to steal from me but unfair for me to want to keep what I earn? The income tax is the biggest crock of shit ever invented. You assume that the government owns 100% of my income, and can let me have whatever they feel like letting me have...when in fact I earn 100% of my income and thus shouldn't have it stolen from me by big government bureaucrats. But right, it's greedy to want to keep what you earn, but not greedy to want to steal from other people because they are more successful than you.

The saddest thing about Obama and his stupid fucking ideas is that he makes successful people seem like the enemy. The "rich," "corporate America," "the oil companies," etc are all fucking evil, but the lazy, jobless fucks being subsidized by the rich to continue being lazy, jobless fucks are the heroes.

Socialism doesn't work (see: France).

(By the way, I think McCain is just as big of a moron as Obama, so don't take this as some partisan rant. I'd almost rather have Obama elected at this point...)

Some comments are coming quite scary to me. Even Mr Adam Smith cited functions and services that government should provide (and that have to be paid for): army, police, schools, hospitals... functions that are necessary for the general welfare, but that private inciative won't bother to finance (and yes, I include schools, a school in a crappy zone will never show a profit, but I still believe they are necessary).

You can add to that my favorite: I+D for very long run research (is NASA usefull? I hope it is, because you guys are sinking millions each year in it...).

If you could just point out where I said the federal government shouldn't be responsible for national defense, that'd be great. Or where no level of government should pay for law enforcement and education (through the secondary level). [Hint: you won't find this, so don't bother looking]

Only ~35-40% of the federal government is funded through the federal income tax. The feds should NOT be involved in education - the Department of Education has done NOTHING for America's educational system. Schools should be responsible to parents (through, for example, school choice programs, where, rather than just tossing money at schools for teaching kids to read by the 10th grade, parents are given educational credits and can choose where to send their kids, giving schools both public and private a real incentive to improve), not federal government bureaucrats. They shouldn't be involved in tons of other things - Dept. of Transportation, FEMA, EPA, domestic surveillance, the running of distressed debt and equity hedge funds, TONS of entitlement and welfare programs (that have done NOTHING but make things worse), etc.

Is NASA useful? I'm not sure. If it qualifies as defense spending, then yeah, maybe. But is the NSF useful? No. Why should the federal government be directing fundamental research rather than companies that are directly connected to the market place? Maybe the feds should be investing in fundamental R&D (since the social return of such investments tend to be very high, but the return to the individual providing the initial funds are low), but they don't need an organization run by federal government bureaucrats actually directing the research. It would be much better, for instance, to provide tax breaks/credits to companies investing in fundamental R&D, than to have some government agency trying to direct such expenditures.

I'm not against legal, useful government spending. But Bush increased spending, entitlements, and economic regulation more than any president since LBJ's "Great Society" bullshit. Increased spending, increased entitlements, increased regulation, and increased taxation are not "progressive" or the "change we need." (Or even change at all).

 

cdw38 - I am not a capitalist or a socialist, and I do not think there has ever been a 'pure' system of either

I do not consider income taxes to be stealing - I see the world as having an amount of resources that are limited, but abundant enough that people can have basic needs met. It is a crime that we allow 'ownership' to allow people to accumulate excessive amounts of these resources. There is no reason that the arbitrary concept of 'ownership' should resign people to destitute lives.

Talk political theory - Adam Smith, John Locke - all you want; social Darwinism does not clean up the streets or the environment, doesn't give people a chance to move upwards, and ultimately, it doesn't save your ass when the Bolsheviks are at your door. Pragmatic - useful - economics considers how the world actually works; it doesn't vomit out esoteric fantasy theories. There are other ways to measure wellness besides cash

 

...we'd have much lower unemployment with lower or nonexistent federal income taxes? For every $100k first-year banker who only takes home $65k of what he earns, that's an extra $35k available to someone besides government bureaucrats...

And it's not some "espteric fantasy theory" - that would be the policy of well-spoken big-government liberals and academics, where if something doesn't exist the government can simply fix it. Unemployment on the rise? No problem, the government will create jobs. Not feeling like paying your loans this month? No problem, the government can just make it legal for you to not pay your bills (we'll call it a "moratorium" and pretend we aren't helping thieving scumbags keep their homes). Can't afford healthcare? No problem, the government will pay for it...

The fact is that the welfare state has done NOTHING for America (here's a 4-minute debate which pretty much sums it up, if you're interested:

). Socialist policies are what keep France's unemployment at a perpetual 10% and keep their system of higher education in a perpetual shithole. People advocating these big-government policies think the world is a simpler place than it actually is, and get their way by pretending to be the "practical" people who actually "care" about the bottom 20% and similar.

And I'm hardly going all the way back to Adam Smith and John Locke...more like Milton Friedman, Tom Sowell, Ron Paul, etc...

 

Slightly above 50% of Americans even pay taxes and tax cuts really only benefit the top 5% or so considering so many people are aided by government for next to nothing payed in taxes. Most voters won't give a shit about an abstract issue like corporate taxes and will care more about which candidate has the better vision for broad economic growth. Wealth disparity isn't as much as a problem as the decreasing level of real gdp per person in America and taxes are likely only going to be a talking point for the fringes of both sides. But honestly eliminating loopholes is the right thing to do regardless of the rate, same with subsidies, even things like alternative energy or dairy subsidies because the free market will always allocate consumer goods the best. Now healthcare is another issue because some say that it is a right, and some say that insurance is a consumer good. The left wants health care for all by getting rid of the insurance industry with single payer and the right wants healthcare to be basically insurance, a good which will have its price level determined solely by supply/demand economics.

-kind of off topic response; but essentially no loopholes, high taxes not the cause of lost jobs (although everyone would enjoy lower taxes :D), Voters don't give a shit about anything other than the Debt and Job creation -----neither of which are directly influenced by tax rates

 

Honestly, I hope Obama raises corporate tax rates. The morons who cheer and support corporate taxes deserve higher prices and lay offs.

People are so god damn dumb. Corporate taxes are just one of many costs of doing business that get factored into a price.

 
ANT:
Honestly, I hope Obama raises corporate tax rates. The morons who cheer and support corporate taxes deserve higher prices and lay offs.

People are so god damn dumb. Corporate taxes are just one of many costs of doing business that get factored into a price.

It's too bad that the people who want higher taxes ALSO want the government to cover those higher expenses through income tax deductions and welfare.

I honestly think poor people screw the rich more than the other way around.

 

Is the OP correct with his/her assessment of nominal vs effective rates? The difference has nothing to do with the overall GDP. The difference between nominal and effective rates is that effective rates take compounding into account. For example a rate that is 6% nominal that occurs semi-annually is actually 6.17% effective.

The amount you should tax each company has nothing at all to do with the overall size of the GDP. What is more at issue is the burden that the tax has on each firm and how that affects the firms profitability.

From the standpoint of a financial analyst, the risk/benefit of investing in a company is completely dependent on the profitability (and projected profitability) of the firm. Currently, approximately 45% of each company's profits are taken as tax (35% federal tax + 10% state tax). If the federal rates were reduced from 35% to 25% as suggested above, profitability for every firm would increase. Every company would therefore be less risky from an investment standpoint and a more favorable investment.

The major issue with the economy atm is that investment funds are shying away from risky investment. The idea of decreased taxes is expected to reduce the tax burden and make companies more profitable, less risky, and a better investment. This would result in more investment = more growth = better economic conditions.

Or so they say.

 

Bottom line, do not take my money away and give it to someone else that is less fortunate than me. Giving them wealth will not teach them how to improve their lives. With the exception of rare circumstances we all have pretty equal opportunity to make it. This obviously is not my regular account but I will use this for all political posts.

I just do not understand how taking money from those that have worked for it and giving it to those that are less fortunate is making them any better. I come from an area where the inner city schools are in REALLY rough shape. The children essentially run the school. These "thug life" kids would be on the receiving end of my taxes. Chances are they wont do a damn thing to somehow add value to this country. I just cant see to helping out them is fair.

 

FTA: "The Obama administration has imposed a 15-cent tax on Christmas trees in order to pay for a new board tasked with promoting the Christmas tree industry...The board, proposed earlier this year, is the culmination of a years-long effort by the fresh Christmas tree industry to promote itself, according to the background provided in the Federal Register. The industry has faced increasing competition from producers of artificial trees, but efforts to collect voluntary contributions for a fresh-tree marketing campaign have repeatedly run out of funding. So the government stepped in to mandate a fee to support the promotion board."

So basically, the Christmas tree industry needed a centralized board to coordinate promotional efforts. It couldn't get done organically and they lobbied for the government to step in. In return, they pay for the costs of the board.

Sounds really absurd to me. /s

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Although the cost of this tax is expected to "It is to be imposed on "producers and importers" of fresh Christmas trees, who sell or import more than 500 trees a year." It is eventually expected to be passed on to the consumer. Even though $.15 isn't shit (I don't even buy real trees, fuck that mess), it is still ridiculous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8879750/Obama-adm…

It comes down to this, though: A 12 person board for the promotion of Christmas trees has just been made. Is this necessary and what sort of income do these people get?

"The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10)."

To add to my original point, this article also states: "To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees."

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christma…

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 
ANT:
Why the fuck is the government involved in promoting Christmas trees?

I mean outside of Christmas, who the fuck is buying these things?

The Christmas tree industry asked for this. The tax is how they pay for it.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 
duffmt6:
ANT:
Why the fuck is the government involved in promoting Christmas trees?

I mean outside of Christmas, who the fuck is buying these things?

The Christmas tree industry asked for this. The tax is how they pay for it.

By passing the tax to consumers is how they will pay for it.

This is as stupid as the tanning bed tax obama had in his healthcare bill.

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 
Nefarious-:
duffmt6:
ANT:
Why the fuck is the government involved in promoting Christmas trees?

I mean outside of Christmas, who the fuck is buying these things?

The Christmas tree industry asked for this. The tax is how they pay for it.

By passing the tax to consumers is how they will pay for it.

This is as stupid as the tanning bed tax obama had in his healthcare bill.

The percentage of a tax passed on to consumers is dependent on the elasticity of demand of the product. Only a 100% inelastic product can have price increases passed directly to consumers. A marginal increase of $0.15 really isn't worth discussing anyways.

In this case, the industry is looking to spend money on a capital investment that they hope will benefit them in the future (the promotion board). This can be paid for with retained earnings or debt issuance and may or may not have any impact on prices, depending on the capital plans of the various tree companies.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 
duffmt6:
Nefarious-:
duffmt6:
ANT:
Why the fuck is the government involved in promoting Christmas trees?

I mean outside of Christmas, who the fuck is buying these things?

The Christmas tree industry asked for this. The tax is how they pay for it.

By passing the tax to consumers is how they will pay for it.

This is as stupid as the tanning bed tax obama had in his healthcare bill.

The percentage of a tax passed on to consumers is dependent on the elasticity of demand of the product. Only a 100% inelastic product can have price increases passed directly to consumers. A marginal increase of $0.15 really isn't worth discussing anyways.

In this case, the industry is looking to spend money on a capital investment that they hope will benefit them in the future (the promotion board). This can be paid for with retained earnings or debt issuance and may or may not have any impact on prices, depending on the capital plans of the various tree companies.

The tax will be passed through or the business will lay off workers or something else to bring revenue back to where it should be. Companies are not going to just say "aww shucks, I suppose I will eat the tax and keep selling to customers without firing anyone, investors won't care"

It is easier to mask a tax on the populace through increased business taxes. Hand in glove with the government.

 
Best Response
ANT:
duffmt6:
Nefarious-:
duffmt6:
ANT:
Why the fuck is the government involved in promoting Christmas trees?

I mean outside of Christmas, who the fuck is buying these things?

The Christmas tree industry asked for this. The tax is how they pay for it.

By passing the tax to consumers is how they will pay for it.

This is as stupid as the tanning bed tax obama had in his healthcare bill.

The percentage of a tax passed on to consumers is dependent on the elasticity of demand of the product. Only a 100% inelastic product can have price increases passed directly to consumers. A marginal increase of $0.15 really isn't worth discussing anyways.

In this case, the industry is looking to spend money on a capital investment that they hope will benefit them in the future (the promotion board). This can be paid for with retained earnings or debt issuance and may or may not have any impact on prices, depending on the capital plans of the various tree companies.

The tax will be passed through or the business will lay off workers or something else to bring revenue back to where it should be. Companies are not going to just say "aww shucks, I suppose I will eat the tax and keep selling to customers without firing anyone, investors won't care"

It is easier to mask a tax on the populace through increased business taxes. Hand in glove with the government.

I assume this would not have been pursued by the christmas tree industry if they did not expect it to increase revenues to the point that it would more than offset the costs. Who invests in negative NPV? This isn't really a tax- it's the government collecting dues from a bunch of tree growers for a promotion committee that they were too disorganized to create themselves.

http://checkoffstudy.blogspot.com/2008/03/industry-at-crossroads.html

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

It has been pulled. Honestly, I am not going to blame Obama on this one. Probably something in a stack of papers he signed without knowing.

That being said, this is a clear example of why we need a smaller Federal government. Look at the dumb shit they are getting involved in. This happens daily.

 

smh....seriously....how is this even an Obama event? This was an industry that asked to raise prices on itself and the backlash ended been directed at the third party.....This is ridiculous and its extremely petty to tittle this post as you did Nefarious.....

Beast
 
Angelus99:
smh....seriously....how is this even an Obama event? This was an industry that asked to raise prices on itself and the backlash ended been directed at the third party.....This is ridiculous and its extremely petty to tittle this post as you did Nefarious.....

Uh, google Obama christmas tree tax. That is what the media has dubbed this, not me, buddy.

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 
Angelus99:
Fair point but did you have to do what the media did?

lol, what title would you have given this?

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 
ANT:
They DID ask for it and THEY should do it themselves. Having the government pass a law that taxes trees and uses government services to collect this and spend it is not right.

I've heard the Christmas tree industry lobbyists are particularly ruthless, so this isn't all that surprising. I'm surprised they couldn't get the menorah industry to absorb some of the expense (yes, they are THAT good).

I kid.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

So when we increase fuel taxes it is a tax on fuel producers and sellers, not a tax on Americans (even though we end up paying the tax)?

This is 100% a tax on a good or service that people pay. If the Christmas tree industry wants a promotion group they should form something and self collect. This bullshit that government is being used as a tool for Christmas tree growers is not only a waste, but a clear example of government getting too big and doing too much.

How about the incredible fire hazard and waste having a tree full of sap in your small house is? Maybe that is why people are getting fake trees.

 
ANT:
So when we increase fuel taxes it is a tax on fuel producers and sellers, not a tax on Americans (even though we end up paying the tax)?

This is 100% a tax on a good or service that people pay. If the Christmas tree industry wants a promotion group they should form something and self collect. This bullshit that government is being used as a tool for Christmas tree growers is not only a waste, but a clear example of government getting too big and doing too much.

How about the incredible fire hazard and waste having a tree full of sap in your small house is? Maybe that is why people are getting fake trees.

I genuinely don't see the parallel to energy taxes, which usually pay for roads and other transportation infrastructure projects. Not to mention the inelasticity of energy and the economic externalities caused by its consumption.

Maybe you should be doing some consulting for the Christmas tree industry, because I agree with you that the government probably isn't the best source for this service. With that said, it was the Christmas tree industry lobbying for themselves to be taxed because they couldn't access a certain service in the private sector.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Nef --- Quiet man. Liberals keep telling us we are paying less taxes (yet keep secretly taxing shit, little by little).

They have adopted the slowly turning up the heat to boil the lobster trick.

 
ANT:
Nef --- Quiet man. Liberals keep telling us we are paying less taxes (yet keep secretly taxing shit, little by little).

They have adopted the slowly turning up the heat to boil the lobster trick.

This thread is a perfect example of the inability people have to think for themselves. This isn't about christmas trees. Who the hell cares about christmas trees or the christmas tree industry? A $.15 tax? C'mon.

Instead, this is about the government (especially this administration) sticking their nose into shit they shouldn't be worried about. If they are willing to dick around with the christmas tree industry for a minute tax, then where the hell is the line?

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 

Tree Growers : Mr President, we are unable to get other growers to adhere to something we think will be best, can you use the powers of the Federal government to force everyone to comply because WE think it is right.

Comrade Obama : Yes, no problem. I have no qualms with using what should of been a limited and small Federal government to enforce your collection of a tax, under penalty of law. Keep the rules and regulations coming.

 

OK lets be honest....this is some nonsense that probably had nothing to do with Obama.....my point from earlier is that this is something that was passed with extreme little amount of thoughts by the government due to the fact that an industry asked to be have taxes levied on itself.....This is how the birth certificate nonsense started....bickering over little details that means nothing in the overall schemes of things...Its getting to be the "cool" thing to do to start battles like this

Beast
 
Angelus99:
OK lets be honest....this is some nonsense that probably had nothing to do with Obama.....my point from earlier is that this is something that was passed with extreme little amount of thoughts by the government due to the fact that an industry asked to be have taxes levied on itself.....This is how the birth certificate nonsense started....bickering over little details that means nothing in the overall schemes of things...Its getting to be the "cool" thing to do to start battles like this

Pretty much agreed with this. The insignificance is pretty astounding.

I don't think it is entirely unfair to be leveling criticism at this whole thing- but it should mostly be directed at the industry involved.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

And the government response should of been no, we don't do that stuff.

And the tax will be passed through to consumers, just as energy taxes are and a myriad of other taxes.

Nanny state growing bigger every day.

 
ANT:
And the government response should of been no, we don't do that stuff.

And the tax will be passed through to consumers, just as energy taxes are and a myriad of other taxes.

Nanny state growing bigger every day.

I guess the tax will be passed on to consumers- in the same way advertising expenses are.

I don't disagree with you that this isn't really the government's role, but it's essentially just acting as a fee collector. If the economic benefit is positive, I don't really see why this is an issue.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

The entire argument for this board rests on the assumption that every single tree grower and vendor in America is in supports:

  • The purpose of the board
  • The means used to achieve its goals
  • The amount of "dues" paid is fair given the potential benefits

There will always be some vendor out that does not agree with any of the above, yet they are still forced to pay for something that they feel is not in their best interest. What about them?

I'm also surprised that no one has yet mentioned that this market intervention means that the government is siding with fresh trees over fake trees.

 
Dying's For Fools:
The entire argument for this board rests on the assumption that every single tree grower and vendor in America is in supports:
  • The purpose of the board
  • The means used to achieve its goals
  • The amount of "dues" paid is fair given the potential benefits

There will always be some vendor out that does not agree with any of the above, yet they are still forced to pay for something that they feel is not in their best interest. What about them?

I'm also surprised that no one has yet mentioned that this market intervention means that the government is siding with fresh trees over fake trees.

Well the real tree industry is a nearly billion dollar a year industry whereas the fake tree industry is only a half a billion a year industry.

Whose side would you be on? Clearly not the second rate industry. I mean, this is the government we are talking about. They don't want to back something that might fail.

Oh, wait.

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 

I bet if I started a thread about Medicare reform it would get 1/10 the posts in this thread (admittedly, I played a part in this).

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

In all fairness, fake trees last for a long time so while their yearly sales might be half real trees, they will slowly eroded the real tree market (as has been happening).

So in all actuality, the government is backing a losing industry. Par the course. hahah

 
ANT:
In all fairness, fake trees last for a long time so while their yearly sales might be half real trees, they will slowly eroded the real tree market (as has been happening).

So in all actuality, the government is backing a losing industry. Par the course. hahah

I am sorry, you are right Anthony.

The depreciation on a real christmas tree is through the roof. I hear after you take it off the lot it loses half its value.

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.
 

Hi,

I do not have the data for USA, but in France, a traditionally left wing/democrat you name it country, the part of capital revenue in GDP has risen 9% vs the part of work revenues in GDP; and this over the last 10 years.

So I would not worry THAT much, rich always manage to lobby their way to skewing wealth distribution to their side...

 

exactly how increasing tax on the very rich will cause stagflation?

Maybe "capitalists" need a breather from overlevering the banking system (all the while collecting their millions in fees that, oh by the way, they don't have to give back when all the crap they created goes to zero) in this country so badly that it is bringing down the entire economy (Oh wait - there's the STAG!!)

Or maybe these "capitalists" could use a break from getting on their knees and lowering interest rates every time Wall Street loses a little money, thus weakening the dollar, or lining their pockets with oil money while ignoring any attempts to become energy-independent, or allowing huge conglomorates to take over all the food production (and subsidies!) (Hold on -- do i see FLATION??)

Anyway, I'm just being silly. None of those things really matter. Everything is fine now and Obama will really mess up all this good stuff we've got going right now under the current regime. But just out of curiosity, I'd like to hear your explanation..

 

HH,

You make valid points but at the end of the day this is America and as a proponent of free-market capitalism I do not believe in excessive taxation and redistribution of wealth. Why should I be penalized by the government for working hard my entire life and building wealth? Do you really want to deal with a 25+% capital gains tax if Obama takes office?

There are a variety of confounding factors affecting the economy (Iraq, sub-prime, inflation, etc.)and just like a typical socialist democrat you simply outline the problems and fail to offer a solution.

 

Regulation. Deregulation (repealing of Glass-Steagall Act, non-existant reserve requirements) has completely incentivized excessive risk taking. Greed needs to be checked, we are seeing the results of its absence now.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a political debate. The only point I wanted to make was that the tax rate on the rich has nothing to do with stagflation. We ALREADY have stagflation and there's been nothing but tax cuts and more tax cuts leading up to now.

 

Obama will fix the economy Most senior workers in BBs are denoting their money to Barack Obama because they know that the economy will be in a very solid shape once he becomes the president.

 

a ton of hedgies and banks are donating money because thats the legal way to bribe a politician. a lot of the same donors are donating to mccain as well.

and as far as the economy being in solid shape, i call bullshit on the notion that a president's policies determine the state of the u.s.' economy. sure, they may nudge it in various directions during the course of a president's tenure but a president cannot turn the business cycle into an upsloping straight line, capitalism don't work that there way.

this is how the average american moron thinks: "oh i didnt (did) like the president because the economy was bad(good) during his tenure." real complicated thought process goin' on right there

Not Obama '08

ST2008:
Obama will fix the economy Most senior workers in BBs are denoting their money to Barack Obama because they know that the economy will be in a very solid shape once he becomes the president.

------

"its the running joke now, we now have fair trade with china so they send us poisoned sea food and we send them fraudulent securities."

------ "its the running joke now, we now have fair trade with china so they send us poisoned sea food and we send them fraudulent securities."
 

I am just surprised by some of you say that Romney can't be a president. So what if was CEO OF Bain? This is America, a super power the should protect the world from upcoming challenges such as Global Warming and the current energy crisis ( do you even know how much do these tow epidemics cost? . Romney wasn't visionary enough when he spent more than forty million dollars but he got a zero profit, he thought that he can win by putting more money, he doesn't have a profound leadership. Unlike, Obama who had run a successful campaign

 
ST2008:
This is America, a super power the should protect the world from upcoming challenges such as Global Warming and the current energy crisis ( do you even know how much do these tow epidemics cost?)

No, care to enlighten us?

 
ST2008:
I am just surprised by some of you say that Romney can't be a president. So what if was CEO OF Bain? This is America, a super power the should protect the world from upcoming challenges such as Global Warming and the current energy crisis ( do you even know how much do these tow epidemics cost? . Romney wasn't visionary enough when he spent more than forty million dollars but he got a zero profit, he thought that he can win by putting more money, he doesn't have a profound leadership. Unlike, Obama who had run a successful campaign

And how is Yung B'rack capable of handling these "epidemics"? The motherfucker was a state senator and has been in the U.S. Sebate for a few years.

You're implying one is qualified to run a country based on being able to run a successful campaign. Given that a lot of people are idiots in the U.S. and primaries/elections are modified "majority rule" you can draw your own conclusion.

My point is that Romney has actually accomplished something other than being a politician. Obama is successful in large part because of help from the media, he was the most hyped candidate. The most qualified, no.

You sound like one of those douches swooning over ambiguous promises of change... plus you mentioned global warming, you goddam pussy.

Honestly, the fact that you described America as "a super power that should protect the world" makes your opinion negligible. Its possibly the most arrogant and irresponsible expression of our foreign policy problems. We started the Iraq War (and entered into many preceding wars) because of our policy of "protecting the world."

Though I'd really like to know exactly Obama's plan to get the economy into ship shape as well as solve all our other problems. Really, I would.

 

this is the article, which spells out how socialist and destructive obama's tax policy is. i sincerely hope that my fellow Americans not get spellbound by obama's fancy rhetoric and see him for what he is: an inexperienced naive socialist who will weaken America just like Jimmy Carter did.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html?mod=opinion_mai…

 

You cannot even begin to comprehend the social and economic implications of the policies of the two frontrunners. Instead, you just bitch about the proposals that will affect you personally. It's absolutely fine to be self-interested but don't pretend to know whether they are good or bad for the country as a whole.

The current situation has arisen out of the policies of the last 30 years, exacerbated by the actions of the current administration. Just because you're alright Jack doesn't mean everyone else is.

Obama is your best hope for turning the US around, and even he isn't going to be able to do it overnight.

Criticise my position all you want but read this first and then decide whether I know what I'm talking about. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/finance-minister-says-us-is-in-de…

 

but the article does nothing to explain why his tax policy is as destructive as you would like us to believe. All your posting it has done is highlight how scared you are by how much this will affect you personally.

The US is already broken and needs fixing - and this is one way of doing it. I would be surprised if I am not financially affected by this more than you are but I would rather be a moderately wealthy person in a contended country than a very wealthy person in a trainwreck of a country.

 
John Mack:
but the article does nothing to explain why his tax policy is as destructive as you would like us to believe. All your posting it has done is highlight how scared you are by how much this will affect you personally.

The US is already broken and needs fixing - and this is one way of doing it. I would be surprised if I am not financially affected by this more than you are but I would rather be a moderately wealthy person in a contended country than a very wealthy person in a trainwreck of a country.

Although I am very scared of Obama's future tax policies, I think what you are saying rings true. I would rather take a pay cut now for more opportunity in a better country later on.

 

Of course the president's polices can affect the economy in one way or another. There seems to be a lot of speculations in the Oil Market and that was not regulated at all. A lot of economists are blaming the speculators who are driving Oil prices high.

The current administration never thought of doing that, and that really is affecting our economy.

The same goes for the housing markets in which it is in a current deep depression and that has to do with the government because they didn't regulate

had there been any regulation over the mortgage market, we would not have witnessed this crisis that resulted millions of people losing their dream homes

 

i dont mean to be too big of an a-hole but you obviously don't have a grasp on how politics and capitalism in the u.s. coexist.

the president doesnt regulate didly. he sets policies which have to be approved by 2 houses of congress. the u.s. is not a dictatorship. a lot of economists are blaming speculators for oil and a lot of people (including the CFTC) are calling a huge bullcrap on that.

your boy obama is pandering to joe shmo out on roadkill drive and explaining to him why he cant afford to drive his 4-wheeler to the local tractor-pull. this just shows how much of a bullcrap artist obama is.

and the housing market? do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just pulling stuff out of your a$$? this mess we're in is the result of lax rating agency standards, little to no checks on the mortgage originators, a housing bubble that has been going on for MANY years, chinese outsourcing of our inflation, the list goes on.

so sorry to be an a-hole, but you should probably stop talking, because you have no clue

ST2008:
Of course the president's polices can affect the economy in one way or another. There seems to be a lot of speculations in the Oil Market and that was not regulated at all. A lot of economists are blaming the speculators who are driving Oil prices high.

The current administration never thought of doing that, and that really is affecting our economy.

The same goes for the housing markets in which it is in a current deep depression and that has to do with the government because they didn't regulate

had there been any regulation over the mortgage market, we would not have witnessed this crisis that resulted millions of people losing their dream homes

------

"its the running joke now, we now have fair trade with china so they send us poisoned sea food and we send them fraudulent securities."

------ "its the running joke now, we now have fair trade with china so they send us poisoned sea food and we send them fraudulent securities."
 

Thanks for your response, you totally missed my point there. The president does not have the power to control the economy, but his policies may affect the economy in one way or another. There were other factors that the affected the housing market but regulations is one the profound factors, treasury secretary Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, said that they will be rigorous regulation over the housing market.

 
chimpmeister:
I'm a staunch Economic conservative, but Obama is way better than McCain. I'm tired of Repub's, they're not the old business friendly GOP, they just suck.

I agree completely...Republicans USED to be baller for business...lowering taxes, small gov't etc...Now Republicans have become so far removed from what they used to stand for that I doubt someone from the 70s or even the 80s would even recognize their own party...

 

Obama's economic policy is ridiculous! He's just trying to be a Robin Hood. He takes money from the rich and hands it to the poor with various social programs. WE worked our asses off in high school, to get into the nation's best universities and colleges. WE worked our asses of to get that big job, or to start a company. Why should we give money to the middle and lower classes, just because we are more successful. The middle and lower classes are there for a good reason. THIS IS AMERICA!! Why should we be punished for our success? Why should we be punished for all our hard work, over so many years. Think about it: our tax dollars go toward some filthy, illiterate, jobless, high-school drop-out through some social program or welfare, who will undoubtedly spend that cheque on some drug or alcohol. God gave us the gifts to reduce risk in any given situation, he gave us impeccable math skills, and OTHER gifts and talents that the general population just don't have, talents and skills which allow us to achieve what we achieve (you never see a job-less, uneducated, unqualified, illiterate guy create a hedge fund, except for Tim Sykes). This is not Capitalism. I'm not voting for McCain either, he looks about old enough to be my grandfather, except for the constant nags about "the ole days". Tim Sykes: Don't sue me, my father's a lawyer, besides I'm just joking. Alos, this post was not meant to be elitist in any way, so to any of you middle or lower class folk, SORRY!

 

First of all, you are not punished for your success. the do you think you are , are you in the first class? I doubt that.... Warren Buffen is above anyone when it comes to wealth. The American economy, which you are craving for, depends tremendously on the middle class,so if the middle class is suffering the financial markets will be very weak.

Warren Buffet is the most successful person when it comes to money and wealth and he is backing Obama because he knows what is best for our country, he will pay more taxes than and he is not whining like a baby, because he wants to help our country by creating social programs and who said the best universities is only for the wealth, I am attending one the best universities and I am not rich.

Obama is a very good example, these social program helped our country to produce very good leaders, Obama is one of them and he is very close to be a President.

A lot of wealthy folks are backing up these social program because they are very necessary and they will help betterize our country.

Our country is going down hill now because of stupid economic polices

A very good example is bill Clinton when he took office America experience its peak growth in economy, 22 million jobs were created, people were so happy and taxes were higher

Now, with 8 years of Bush's administration, a lot of jobs were lost, we experienced tow recessions, housing market is in sever depression, and the dollar is weak and that's all with low taxes

Now you tell me it's very simple and we have 2 good historic examples.

I know a lot of MDs AND EDs who in top ivy league universities and they were laid off after all of their hard work , even they are rich they don't like our economy poultices because it also hurt the rich people.

 

"Warren Buffet is the most successful person when it comes to money and wealth and he is backing Obama because he knows what is best for our country, he will pay more taxes than and he is not whining like a baby, because he wants to help our country by creating social programs and who said the best universities is only for the wealth, I am attending one the best universities and I am not rich." Buffet also has a bazillion dollars and is at the end of his life, unlike many higher income guys in their late 20's or early 30's who have much to do and see and they clearly are better than the jackasses who live on welfare.

"A lot of wealthy folks are backing up these social program because they are very necessary and they will help betterize our country." Betterize is not a word.

"A very good example is bill Clinton when he took office America experience its peak growth in economy, 22 million jobs were created, people were so happy and taxes were higher" Clinton Administration did not have any major issues to take care of in his time.

"Now, with 8 years of Bush's administration, a lot of jobs were lost, we experienced tow recessions, housing market is in sever depression, and the dollar is weak and that's all with low taxes" I agree that Bush is quite dumb, but if his run was not marred by WTC, War( debatable coz he brought that about in the first place) and the downturn we have now, you same people would have rated him as a 'Good' President.

The thing that Obama (if he comes in power) should worry about is making education cheaper and widely available instead of just raising taxes to create a dumb socialist policy like f'in europe.

 

A lot of people stood behind Bush in 2001, and he a gave a strong speech about national security( his approval ratings were higher than 70%), but he disappointed everyone, even his top advisers and now his ratings are even lower than Nixon's. Bush didn't do anything in hurricane Katrina, and he didn't help the people simply because they were Black,it was a disgrace that several lives could have saved quickly and Bush was very slow and thousands of victims paid the price because of the stupidity and his lack of leadership.

And to answer the question what Obama can do to help the economy, well he is going to invest $150 billion dollars in alternative energy, this will help our economy by creating many green jobs.

 

Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place. MCCAIN OBAMA Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 $603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 $227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 $161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789 $112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204 $66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290 $38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 $19K-$38K -$113 -$892 Under $19K -$19 -$567

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tp…

Should be obvious where my vote is going.

"Oh - the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion?"

"Oh the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion" - Frank Slaughtery 25th Hour.
 

Wow, I actually agree with you on this, Edmundo. If all schools were private, the cost would be MUCH smaller than it is right now. And competition forces schools to be efficient.But then the poor children that couldn't afford it would be assisted by private individuals, and charities

http://www.deadstock.ca/ Your closet will never be the same again.

 

what are the numbers? will he be increasing income taxes? what will be the highest tax bracket? what will be the percentage for the highest tax bracket?

As far as I understand, Obama is planning on eliminating the threshold on the "payroll tax". So..

The payroll tax is FICA, essentially, comprised of both medicare and social security taxes. FICA is withheld by your employer at 6.2% for social security and 1.45% for medicare. These figures are also matched by the employer (12.4% and 2.9% respectively). Now, the 1.45% is paid on your income indefinitely, while the 6.2% of social security tax is withheld up to $105,000 and is not withheld thereafter. So, what Obama wants to do is eliminate that $105,000 threshold and have your entire income sum be liable for 6.2% of social security tax withholding.

So...If that's the case, it's a relatively efficient way to raise revenue, BUT it's a substantial burden to the employee nonetheless (if you're even in jeopardy of making that much money).

If anyone can confirm this, that would be great because I don't feel that either candidate has really made it very clear what they plan on doing with taxes. One just accuses the other of raising them, and the other of cutting them, but who really knows what the numbers are??

Another point regarding what I believe is part of Obama's greater scheme: He is planning on increasing the capital gains tax (currently maxed at 15%). Historically, anytime the government has increased this tax, investors have pulled their money out of the market because it was not worth the burden. So, the percentage taxed has been greater, but the revenue collected ultimately is lower, because not enough capital gains were earned.

As as aside, Obama > McCain for president (in my humble opinion). So don't let these facts turn you away from our homeboy. I would be ripping McCain a new one but he's been limited in his ability to expalin..i mean explain, his own policies.

tNt

 

Obama wants to: Raise the top bracket of income taxation to at least 39.6% (family income of $200,000 or more), Impose FICA tax on ALL income, raise capital gains tax from 15 to 28%, double dividend taxes from 15 to 30%, and end the planned elimination of estate taxes, amoung other things...

Obama will kill the economy with his plans for wealth redistribution, by taxing both the people and all businesses during a time when money is tight. Investments will be driven out of the United State. The USA will, in almost all aspects, be driven to a FAR left (virtually socialist) country... If we see all of Obama's plans carried through, which with a Democratic House and Senate is completely probable, the US will witness true class warfare... He'll be out in 4 years, and then a Republican will have to come in and try to fix everything that went down the shitter under Obama's administration.

We can all agree that Bush was not a great president, but the pain this country is feeling has just begun if Obama gets elected. To not vote for McCain because he represents the same party as Bush is completely illogical. Every president is different and McCain represents a more moderate candidate who has worked with both aisles...

And for a site that is dedicated to bankers and Wall Street, I am shocked by the amount of Obama supporters on this site. If anyone should be frightened it should be the capitalists (aka people who work on the street)

 
Mr.Green:
Obama wants to: Raise the top bracket of income taxation to at least 39.6% (family income of $200,000 or more), Impose FICA tax on ALL income, raise capital gains tax from 15 to 28%, double dividend taxes from 15 to 30%, and end the planned elimination of estate taxes, amoung other things...

Obama will kill the economy with his plans for wealth redistribution, by taxing both the people and all businesses during a time when money is tight. Investments will be driven out of the United State. The USA will, in almost all aspects, be driven to a FAR left (virtually socialist) country... If we see all of Obama's plans carried through, which with a Democratic House and Senate is completely probable, the US will witness true class warfare... He'll be out in 4 years, and then a Republican will have to come in and try to fix everything that went down the shitter under Obama's administration.

We can all agree that Bush was not a great president, but the pain this country is feeling has just begun if Obama gets elected. To not vote for McCain because he represents the same party as Bush is completely illogical. Every president is different and McCain represents a more moderate candidate who has worked with both aisles...

And for a site that is dedicated to bankers and Wall Street, I am shocked by the amount of Obama supporters on this site. If anyone should be frightened it should be the capitalists (aka people who work on the street)

Have you even heard of what McCain's policies are? He doesn't even understand the economy. His idea is to put a freeze on government spending, because that is his only solution to getting our way out of this mess. He is an idiot, and it makes me angry that people think taxes are the sole driving force of the economy.

 

If Obama is elected, our country will never be the same. We will have so much new legislation, etc. that completely takes away from what this country is based on. We're right on our way to socialism.

Makes me sick.

 

I'm going to put aside the fact that both McCain and Palin are idiots for a moment.

I hope you guys realize that if you look at an actuary table, theres greater than a 1/3 chance that McCain doesn't make it alive (literally) through his first term. And then you've got Sarah "hockey mom" Palin as the U.S. President.... Don't you think that is a little scary?

 

Yeah, Obama is our hero that hopefully will fix the economy, he is taking this opportunity to reach out to all suffered Americans and he will do whatever it takes to improve our lives and to fix the health care system, and to make us independent of the middle eastern oil.

Sarah Palin is using racist terms when she mentions "Hockey Mom" or " Joe six-pack" because she's only referring to White Americans and ignoring the rest. Americans are changing and it is the most diverse country...On the other hand the Republican party is not changing.... when I saw their convention. I thought they are going back in time.

 

FWIW, Obama backed off of the 28% cap gains tax stance when everybody started flipping out. Now he says he'll keep it somewhere closer 20%. The FICA thing blows though...got to love the Robin Hood mentality of the Democrats.

IMO, I really think this election makes the US look like a joke. Obama stands a good chance of assassination by some redneck, McCain could kick the bucket any day. Palin vs. Biden...hmmm.... Are those seriously the best people to run this country? No, because any body in their right mind will never run for Pres.

 
 

What exactly did the rich do to deserve all their money? For every person you show me making > $200,000, I can show you 100 people who work harder than him, are smarter than him, but haven't sold themselves out, and make

 

Hockey Moms and Joe Six Pack are racial terms? Please tell me you are kidding? Let me guess, you watched the Factor and saw what that professor from Temple had to say... To think that Palin is targeting only white Americans with those terms is just so sad. I think it takes more of a racist mindset to look that far into a simple statement and come out with an accusation that it is racist.

And why would Obama move more to the center once he gets in. With Democratic control over congress, he can pass as many radical bills as he wants and the left will love it and go along with it.

The point is, Obama wants to take this country dangerously to the left. McCain might be like Bush in several ways, and may not be the brightest when it comes to economics, BUT it is better than the alternative. Wealth redistribution and socialized health care (in which our taxes will go to insure the millions of illegal immigrants in this country), is not what America was founded on. All the freebies the Democrats want to give out are sickening. Why should the people on this site, who worked hard, went to great schools, got great paying jobs working 100 hours a week, pay up to 50% or more of their income to provide for those who didnt do shit with their lives. Remember those jackoffs in high school that never went to college and are now working in retail somewhere? You went to Ivy's and bust your ass 100 hours a week to make sure that screw off has health care, or is compensated "fairly"? Hell no. Aachimp you said that you can show us people who work harder and are smarter making 100k or less than ones making 200K, but just didnt sell out? WTF? I cant help they didnt take a more prosperous path in life. So why should my money be redistributed to them? They didnt want/work for it, so why should they get it. Because I did? What a joke.

I know Obama will most likely win the election, mostly because people do not educate themselves on each candidate but rather are infatuated with the idea of voting against Bush (whos not running might I remind you), and for someone who has charisma and is a good speaker with a celebrity like character. Too bad they do not listen to what he actually has to say... Its sad because sa4hire is right. Obama starts doing all that he wants to do, and you might see the first assassination in decades, and then there will not only be a political war but a race war on top of that. This country is heading for a rough four years, so buckle up.

 

of course it's racist, why the hell she always brings up the term hockey moms rather than American moms?

you just mentioned that McCain most likely will be like another term of Bush. All investment banks, which this popular forum is built on, are gone in one week and that had to due with bush's polices and de-regulations which were supported McCain.

go To different parts of the world and you will find out that The world hates our administration and our policies.

 

Its not racist at all man. She is using a part of her life to connect with any American woman who has a child that partakes in sports. If she had children who played soccer she would be saying soccer moms. If she had children that played basketball she would be saying basketball moms. But then again people would probably make up some bullshit saying that she would then be singling out black folk. Seriously, its not racist, its just something she uses to connect to any mother through her own experiences. To think otherwise is pathetic.

And no, a term of McCain will not be a term of Bush. Yes, they have SOME similarities but they are not the same. And the root of all of the banks problems came when the Clinton Administration pushed the Community Reinvestment Act upon the lenders. The lenders were practically forced to give out loans to people who they knew couldnt afford them in the first place. Yes, we can blame the Bush Administration for the de-regulation, but at the same time you have to blame the Democrats for getting us into this mess on top of Barney Frank and Dodd for not doing their jobs and misleading the American people... Once again, another freebie system the Democrats wanted that F'ed this country up... Can wait to see what Obama implements that blows up down the road...

And I understand most of the world hates us right now. In no ways am I saying that Bush was a good president, I know he wasnt. But to think Obama is going to fix that is crazy. Obama gets elected and then what, Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran might like us better? I can do without their approval of our country.

 

of course Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran are terrible countries and I was not referring to them. I am talking about our allies especially in Euopre. John McCain recently said that he would not meet with the leader of Spain?!!! Which happens to be a member in the NATO and a strong US allie who sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to help us in the war..... I mean that's even that Bush.

History will blame Bush's polices supported by McCain causing our worst financial crises since the Great Depression. Leadership was missing during this crisis and had we have a profound leadership that really cares about the economy, we would not have at least been in this calamity.

I still think Palin's was very disastrous..... She couldn't answer simple questions during interviews. how in earth would she be able to lead a superpower country with these poor credentials

Look at this interview

Do you really want her to lead our country???

 

They are the same fucking candidate. Republicans are the party of big socialist government, and Democrats are the party of bigger (yet maybe better financed) socialist government. (Don't think the Republicans are socialists as well? Maybe you missed the $1T+ the Bush administration wants to spend to socialize our banking system?)

Our country is more than $10T in debt; we have troops in 180 countries around the world and embrace an interventionist foreign policy that has never done any good for anyone, ever; we have a failing educational system directed by the federal government and focused on teaching kids how to read by the 10th grade; a political system that would rather spend time conducting in-depth investigations of steroid use in professional baseball and video-taping in professional football than work on, oh, I don't know, any number of thousands of more pressing problems; some of the most dangerous inner cities in the world and a federal government hellbent on wasting billions of dollars fighting an unwinnable "war on drugs;" and two presidential candidates that think "predatory lenders" (and not the scumbags borrowing money and not paying it back) are the sole cause of our current predicament.

Now for a few specific replies:

[quote=aachimp]What exactly did the rich do to deserve all their money? For every person you show me making > $200,000, I can show you 100 people who work harder than him, are smarter than him, but haven't sold themselves out, and make

 

72 Year Old McCain with a history of cancer lost any chance of getting my vote once he put that imbecile on his ticket.

This is what happens when you allow the ultra-right wing social conservative lunatics to take the Republican Party hostage.

Rather than get socially moderate fiscal conservatives, we are stuck with Falwell & Co.'s protege.

 
Clueless Wanderer:
72 Year Old McCain with a history of cancer lost any chance of getting my vote once he put that imbecile on his ticket.

This is what happens when you allow the ultra-right wing social conservative lunatics to take the Republican Party hostage.

Rather than get socially moderate fiscal conservatives, we are stuck with Falwell & Co.'s protege.

Ether. The Federal Government needs to be purged of the socially conservative retards.

 
mlamb93:
McCain lost my vote when he put Sarah Palin on his ticket. Her lack of intelligence is embarrassing. Event if your are a staunch Republican, you can't possibly defend this woman.

I agree completly. I'm a centrist but do have some Republican ideals, and the thought of Sarah Palin in the White House sends a shiver down my spine. I can't believe that McCain actually picked her there were so many better people (Ridge, Romney, Pawlenty); I mean she's gonna get hammered by Putin if she's in office not to mention that she knows didly on the economy. Anyway, back to Obama to be fair Wall Street has had a free ride for a long time a lot of deregulation in the market. Don't get me wrong I'm fiscally conservative/capitalist but not to the extent where people can do whatever they want without reprcussions. Also, if you're middle class you'd be stupid not to vote for Obama unless you're in the bible belt. It irks me that people are making the same mistake again by voting for McCain who's basically offering the same ideas as President Bush. If McCain were to win the election which he probably won't, but if he does I'd guess that he'd drift away from the conservatives and head more towards the moderate with conservative bents which I can agree more with than a liberal/centrist with liberal bents. Really, really really hope that he becomes the old Maverick that went above partisan politics.

 

I almost made it through reading all of this post I just felt the tick to responds.

ST2008, your thoughts on Palins "racial" comments make you sound almost as stupid as your 122 stupid new threads you created asking the same thing. Note the keyword is ALMOST. You sound like a liberal baby whining and complaining ST2008.

"Oh the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion" - Frank Slaughtery 25th Hour.
 

i beg to differ on the "works harder than him"...a lot of the people in long term "middle class" careers i know work 9-5. that means at 60 hours a week i work 50% more than them. at 80 i work 100% more...and at 100 i work 150% more.

and that's not even counting the lunch breaks or other large amounts of time that go wasted in corporate america (though im not claiming my job is completely devoid of that either).

 

122 threads.. lol, you need to take math lessons so you can learn how to read numbers and count.

It's not about being a liberal or a conservative.,. The good thing is that the American people are responding and Obama has a double eight lead in national polls. People are looking for change and something new and different...

In my opinion, McCain is not serious about this election and looks like he has given up even though he still has a chance.

 

The major complaint against McCain is "4 more years of Bush." Palin aside (I agree she is an incompetent fool), I would much rather have 4 more years of bush than the possibility of 4 more years of a clinton-esque regime where the government promotes these bullshit socialist ideals like making every american a home owner and exacerbates the real estate bubble. Democrats do not know anything about economics: that is why in 2004 when freddie/fannie came under fire that the democrats ardently defended their practices and even extended their acquisitions of subprime mortgages while the republicans we advocating a shorter leash for the organizations. And what does Obama do? he fucking takes the ceo who was fired after these hearings for accounting irregularities and appoints him as his chief economic adviser. Honestly, how can you vote for a guy whose economic adviser played an instrumental role in the current disaster? and the democrats want to blame this on Bush. I say HA HA HA because anyone who says that is a fucking idiot! (though I do not deny he probably made things no better and most likely slightly worse)

 

By the same token, McCain's top economic advisor Phil Gramm said back in the summer when things weren't bad as now that America is a "nation of whiner" and we are suffering from a "mental rescission"

and now America is suffering from the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

 

Also, about the Palin being a racist by using joe-six pack and hockey mom, its not racist at all. The biggest problem with her is that she can't relate to anyone but hockey moms who are in general white. I bet even the GOP were scratching their head when thinking what the hell was McCain thinking. I mean no offense Senator McCain made a horrible horrible idea picking her. To this day, I have no idea what he was thinking I mean I can't comprehend how he picked Sarah Palin. I wished he had taken Pawlenty who seemed pretty good. Also, to a lot of right wing bankers Obama obviously will be hated cause he's taking their money. To middle class people, I'd vote Obama seems more fair and equal to them but anyway to each their own.

 

Talking about the politicians’ earmarks or “pork” barrel spending, both political parties are equally eager to spend tax dollars on worthless and unnecessary "pet projects." In this regard, there is no difference between the two political parties. Citizens Against Government Waste is an excellent source of information about government waste. If more people had their hands on it, a lot of legislators would doubtless put an online cash advance to stop it. The CAGW makes the Pig Book available for free download and a hard copy of the yearly report available for a cash donation. The donation asked for isn't huge, so you can get a copy of the Pig Book of government pork without worrying about short term loans.

 

Unfortunately you're not going to find that and with good reason. I looked everywhere a while ago. I am conscerned about income tax (obviously), but in reality he can leave that alone and still do a ton of damages.

I am a cpa and even though I hate taxes, I know enough that even if the base tax rates stay the same or similar other changes can be much more catastrophic. I've heard that he has mentioned eliminating or reducing the tax free portion of real estate gains (currently 250k per person, 500k per couple) and other taxes that would effect 401k and IRAs. Retirement savings and personal real estate combine for most americans wealth, if those start getting taxed at high rates you are severely impacting people's lives.

To me, that is much more devastating than an extra 3% income tax (although I dont really like either).

 

"Bring down the PE model"---guess what, paying income tax on your income isn't going to bring down the PE model. If PE partners really think it's not worth their time only earning 13 mm in carry instead of 17 mm (which is the difference from 15% to 35% on 20 mm of carry income), then they can leave the industry. I'll gladly take their place.

Capital gains tax rates are lower to encourage investment. PE partners should pay capital gains rates on their co-investments--ie the capital that they actually risk. But merely investing other people's money means you are not risking anything; you're providing a service. That should be taxed as income.

Of course PE's raising the horn about all the bs of how this will destroy their industry. But really, the only thing that's going to destroy the industry is the ton of shitty over-leveraged investments it made in the past 5 years.

 
xqtrack:
"Bring down the PE model"---guess what, paying income tax on your income isn't going to bring down the PE model. If PE partners really think it's not worth their time only earning 13 mm in carry instead of 17 mm (which is the difference from 15% to 35% on 20 mm of carry income), then they can leave the industry. I'll gladly take their place.

Capital gains tax rates are lower to encourage investment. PE partners should pay capital gains rates on their co-investments--ie the capital that they actually risk. But merely investing other people's money means you are not risking anything; you're providing a service. That should be taxed as income.

Of course PE's raising the horn about all the bs of how this will destroy their industry. But really, the only thing that's going to destroy the industry is the ton of shitty over-leveraged investments it made in the past 5 years.

sadly i have to agree with this logic even though it stands to cost me a lot of money over the next couple of decades. my hope is that we can find a way to somewhat mitigate the adverse effect on compensation. since most PE partners make a majority of their income from carry this is tough pill to swallow all at once.

 
xqtrack:
"Bring down the PE model"---guess what, paying income tax on your income isn't going to bring down the PE model. If PE partners really think it's not worth their time only earning 13 mm in carry instead of 17 mm (which is the difference from 15% to 35% on 20 mm of carry income), then they can leave the industry. I'll gladly take their place.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed. Going from 15% to 35% is a big difference which will cause a substantial amount of investors to take their money out of PE.

E.G. if a PE firm has an investment opportunity to to earn 10% after one year than the after tax return would be 6.5% instead of 8.5%. An investor could now decide to go with an alternative investment, like municipalities and earn 4.5% tax free and have a lot safer investment (at least in better economic times), because the potential for an extra 2% return (6.5% - 4.5% = 2%) is not enough the entice the investor to take on the additional risk in the PE investment, whereas an extra 4% (8.5% - 4.5% = 4%) would have been enough to take on the extra risk of PE.

This is just a hypothetical example I used to explain Investment Theory 101, but the idea is that investors will have a lot more opportunities that have higher risk-reward (Sharpe Ratios) than PE. You can invest in the stock market for a year and earn 8%, with a 15% long-term capital gains tax you have an after-tax return of 6.8% > 6.5% (10% PE return) etc.

So yes, money will flee the PE funds rather quickly with this change.

 

Architecto corrupti aut quae placeat laborum harum. Id dolorum voluptas temporibus et blanditiis explicabo. Saepe aut iste asperiores aperiam nobis cupiditate facilis quasi. Voluptas at aut ad debitis eligendi enim. Non rerum perspiciatis illum repudiandae fugit odio.

Vitae qui est et rerum voluptatum in. Aperiam officia accusamus qui hic. Rerum consequuntur dolore nihil corporis voluptatem.

Eos provident illo officiis. Veniam dolores et sunt tempora.

 

Dolore et minima atque quis sed. Neque aspernatur saepe animi voluptates nisi. Facere iure non accusamus dolores magni minima similique iusto. Et quaerat magni voluptatem reiciendis non. Omnis fugit quis quis est. Est error ad voluptates veritatis quae qui libero. Dolore aut consectetur et nulla quam impedit.

Fuga quia sed fugiat sed rerum fugit laboriosam. Sit harum vel aut eum et. Aut eligendi nostrum quo ipsa eaque. Sed nostrum repellendus sit et voluptatem est. Autem aut non magnam. Dolorum rerum iure modi dolores et. Distinctio assumenda et quia nisi dignissimos.

Ab nulla ut et eum ex sunt. Accusamus dolores inventore ex quisquam accusamus cupiditate minima. Unde et non et distinctio quo vero delectus. Et in necessitatibus ducimus natus odio ab. Eum dolorem aliquam totam et saepe. Doloribus ut sint facere.

CompBanker’s Career Guidance Services: https://www.rossettiadvisors.com/
 

Dolores iure a debitis delectus aut. Non est velit accusantium beatae magnam ut.

Aliquam unde dolor odio quaerat vel repellat. Perferendis animi est itaque recusandae cum praesentium amet nam.

Officiis praesentium expedita omnis ad distinctio atque. Sunt rem dolores id mollitia. Quas esse neque qui rem a dolorum. Et veritatis autem voluptatem autem. Quo quia porro autem accusantium rerum. Debitis provident voluptas sed. Et aperiam vel nesciunt culpa optio voluptas qui.

Suscipit temporibus ea occaecati exercitationem quis voluptas. Voluptatem dolorem nisi velit rerum vel sunt. Aut enim reprehenderit quaerat sed ut rerum harum. In ut illo autem est corporis officiis. Atque at dicta eum quia accusantium iure.

 

Accusantium praesentium maxime esse id qui inventore. Nemo omnis facere consectetur autem a minus quaerat. Minima quo doloribus esse laborum nesciunt veniam dolorem.

Ut amet eveniet repellendus commodi qui ut. Architecto dolorum possimus laborum possimus quis omnis. Molestias ad deserunt nihil soluta minima maxime sequi.

Fugit doloribus necessitatibus voluptatum. Aliquid dolore omnis dolorum itaque.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”