I would like to start a discussion about economics in the UK, US and the Eurozone

[CardiMuscles]

However, I know that in the past when I have started these sorts of topics political ideology gets in the way and so would like to know which side of the aisle people belong to first of all, therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

[PopeGregorius]

Italy is fux0r'd. http://www.economist.com/news/financ...id-crisis-life

The wasteful spenders like the US, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain are paying the price of wasting trillions on ... nothing. Their economies must be slower for decades to come while in this period of debt deflation.

I'm a mathematician so politics is noise to me.

[ljimd]

Politics and economics, this oughta' be good.

[nebraskaheat]

I'm a flaming moderate!

[thomashenry]

However, I know that in the past when I have started these sorts of topics political ideology gets in the way and so would like to know which side of the aisle people belong to first of all, therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

Don`t Spend more than you have

[Tyrbolift]

However, I know that in the past when I have started these sorts of topics political ideology gets in the way and so would like to know which side of the aisle people belong to first of all, therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

Left-Leaning Libertarian, so....none of the above.

[drudixon]

I love the fact that the US has the 2nd largest debt in its history. Largest was post WWII.

WWII the top wage earners paid 90% income tax.

Here's the years and effectivie tax rates by bracket. Note, everyone paid income tax back then. Not sure about you, but I'd rather not pay 75% income tax.

1944 23 41 59 75 90
1945 23 41 59 75 90
1946 19 36 53 68 82
1947 19 36 53 68 82

[stealth_swimmer]

I love the fact that the US has the 2nd largest debt in its history. Largest was post WWII.

WWII the top wage earners paid 90% income tax.

Here's the years and effectivie tax rates by bracket. Note, everyone paid income tax back then. Not sure about you, but I'd rather not pay 75% income tax.

1944 23 41 59 75 90
1945 23 41 59 75 90
1946 19 36 53 68 82
1947 19 36 53 68 82

Actually, back then you pretty much had to be rich to pay 90% income tax. So basically, they weren't people who earned wages.

[drudixon]

Actually, back then you pretty much had to be rich to pay 90% income tax. So basically, they weren't people who earned wages.

The top bracket back then was $325,000+. If you made $1, you paid 23% tax.

Erm... Unemployment in 1944 was 1.2%. So there were plenty of wage earners.

[stealth_swimmer]

The top bracket back then was $325,000+. If you made $1, you paid 23% tax.

Erm... Unemployment in 1944 was 1.2%. So there were plenty of wage earners.

Might wanna read what I posted again

The top bracket was $325,000 right? My understanding is that most ppl who made that much in a year were not *wage* earners....they're on salary or commission or whatevs. They weren't earning $156 per hour in wages(that's what $325k per year would be on an hourly basis, assuming 40 hours per week).

I think that she either doesn't understand Capital Gains, is confusing Capital Gains with income, or she perhaps thinks that "rich" people somehow do not "earn" their money.

I'm a he...lol, just sayin

[Flounderbout]

Might wanna read what I posted again

The top bracket was $325,000 right? My understanding is that most ppl who made that much in a year were not *wage* earners....they're on salary or commission or whatevs. They weren't earning $156 per hour in wages(that's what $325k per year would be on an hourly basis, assuming 40 hours per week).

I'm a he...lol, just sayin

Goddammit I hate rich douches who earn income instead of good honest wages.

[sy2502]

However, I know that in the past when I have started these sorts of topics political ideology gets in the way and so would like to know which side of the aisle people belong to first of all, therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

What would you like to discuss? The situation is pretty big and complex, and varies across different Eurozone countries. Each one would probably deserve its own discussion.

Oh and Independent with Libertarian leaning.

[drudixon]

Might wanna read what I posted again

The top bracket was $325,000 right? My understanding is that most ppl who made that much in a year were not *wage* earners....they're on salary or commission or whatevs. They weren't earning $156 per hour in wages(that's what $325k per year would be on an hourly basis, assuming 40 hours per week).



I'm a he...lol, just sayin

Wages and income would be the same thing in this example.

[theNorthPole]

However, I know that in the past when I have started these sorts of topics political ideology gets in the way and so would like to know which side of the aisle people belong to first of all, therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

I don't know which label describes me. I am a believer in government. Now having said that, I would rather live in a society where we do not need a central coercive government. That's a pipe dream however. So I think that government should be responsible for essential services. Defense, policing, water, sewage, garbage collection, health care and public education up to grade 12. Also a pension for the truly disabled.
I also believe that government should hold business responsible, ensuring that business/corporations act in the interest of the country that they are doing business in. Ex. corporations should not be shutting down shirt factories in order to get the shirts made in China. If they do so, then they should lose the market that they had in their country of origin.
So, what does that make me? I don't know. But I always vote for the Green Party. That's because the leader of the Canadian Greens has integrity. I don't worry too much about their specific policies. Now, having said that, I do like the new Liberal Premier of Ontario. She comes across as being a real worker, and not so much a politician.

[SP1966]

I don't know which label describes me. I am a believer in government. Now having said that, I would rather live in a society where we do not need a central coercive government.

I don't know if oxymoronic could be used to describe a person, but I'm gonna do it anyways!

So I think that government should be responsible for essential services. Defense, policing, water, sewage, garbage collection, health care and public education up to grade 12. Also a pension for the truly disabled. I also believe that government should hold business responsible, ensuring that business/corporations act in the interest of the country that they are doing business in. Ex. corporations should not be shutting down shirt factories in order to get the shirts made in China. If they do so, then they should lose the market that they had in their country of origin.

So you believe what remains of the private sector should be regulated by our ingenious leaders. Given private business would be so tightly regulated what value is there in keeping them private rather then just adding them to the ever growing list of services usurped by the public sector?

So, what does that make me? I don't know. But I always vote for the Green Party. That's because the leader of the Canadian Greens has integrity. I don't worry too much about their specific policies. Now, having said that, I do like the new Liberal Premier of Ontario. She comes across as being a real worker, and not so much a politician.

That should make you a big Obama supporter! Socialist at best (best being a relative term here), communist at worst. I guess the good thing we can take from your post is at least you waste your vote on a meaningless party!!

[mcichocki]

Mix mode economics FTW...I'm a centrist basically.
In for later discussion.

[stealth_swimmer]

Goddammit I hate rich douches who earn income instead of good honest wages.

Huh? I don't think wages make your living an honest one. It's independent of that. You could earn wages honestly or dishonestly, and the same goes for other types of income.

Wages and income would be the same thing in this example.

My point is that a salary is not a wage. A wage is hourly pay, a salary is a set amount per year.

[Phattso]

G I hate rich douches who earn income instead of good honest wages.

What about the rich people who started out by earning honest wages and then excelled, then hired people to earn honest wages? Does that make them douches?

I hate it when people make such blanket statements with no thought behind them.

[drudixon]

Huh? I don't think wages make your living an honest one. It's independent of that. You could earn wages honestly or dishonestly, and the same goes for other types of income.



My point is that a salary is not a wage. A wage is hourly pay, a salary is a set amount per year.

Then why bother to say "hourly wages"....? Youre splitting hairs over absolutely nothing.

Try googling "wage"...

[dbx]

This thread seems like a great idea.

LOL'd IRL........

I think that she either doesn't understand Capital Gains, is confusing Capital Gains with income, or she perhaps thinks that "rich" people somehow do not "earn" their money.

I ran into her in the R&P a few years ago. Like her. I mean, "I Am Teh Lolrus", always struck me as funny.

I'm a he...lol, just sayin

Whoops, wonder what gave anyone a different idea?

Sorry

Don't be.

[so-tex]

therefore do you consider yourself to be Conservative, Liberal, Independent or Apolitical?

None of the above. I am a Libertarian.

This thread seems like a great idea.

I respectfully disagree with you sir.

Don`t Spend more than you have

This. Unfortunately we have too many in this country that live well above their means.

[Wyomann]

Economically conservative. I believe in freedom and less government. The only areas I do not agree with my conservative cohorts are on marriage of gay people and abortion. I think government should stay out of who is allowed to marry based on sexual preference. I also believe in the right to choose in abortion, as long as my tax money isn't paying for it.

What pissed me off the most is that people get free money/benefits for nothing. No one should get a free ride. If you collect welfare and get your kids childcare paid for; you should be a government program to make you earn part of that money by picking up trash or w/e, not sit on your ass while others pay.

The second thing that pisses me off is regulations on businesses and unions. I'm not even a business owner, but all this bullsh!t about who can hire who, having to pay for healthcare, and government benefits. How ridiculous is it that teachers basically can't be fired and are not fired based on performance.

Obama and his sycophantic *** boys like Chris Matthews piss me off. Obama and the senate are going to ruin this country. They can't figure out how to cut 85Billion dollars when we are almost 17trillion in debt? They are retards. They'll never get us out of debt, because they aren't willing to cut 2% of just the ANNUAL budget. The house and republicans have tried to push 3 bills to change the sequestration and they have been denied because they don't have loop hole closes and aren't raising taxes. It's so asinine that's it was their own bill and now they are crying that the Republicans won't raise taxes to stop their own bill.

Donuts piss me off too. They ruin my cutting cycles.

[Wyomann]

You do realize that you are a Libertarian, right?

I'm a BAMF. Gonna standing overhead press 365lbs soon.

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid downplayed the idea that giving the administration more flexibility would help. The White House has also brushed off that option. Democrats generally say the cuts are too steep, and should be replaced with a package that blends targeted cuts with tax increases."

Basically the democrats don't want the flexibility to cut the $85billion from where they choose.... they just want a chance at increasing taxes again. Unbelievable. If they were able to pick and choose where the cuts came from they could get rid of some of the more wasteful areas instead of just a flat $85 billion across the board.

[stealth_swimmer]

Then why bother to say "hourly wages"....? Youre splitting hairs over absolutely nothing.

Try googling "wage"...

A wage is hourly pay. A salary isn't a wage. That was my point. Top income earners did NOT earn wages....
Who the hell earns $150 per hour? Maybe if they were paid wages plus commissions or something.

edit - I followed your advice to google "wage"....and google seems to agree with me, not you. Just sayin...

1. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.
2. wages Economics The portion of the national product that represents the aggregate paid for all contributing labor and services as distinguished from the portion retained by management or reinvested in capital goods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wage

A wage is remuneration paid by an employer to an employee. It may be calculated as a fixed task based amount, or at an hourly rate, or based on an easily measured quantity of work done. It is contrasted with salaried work, which is based on a fixed time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage

You do realize that you are a Libertarian, right?

As a libertarian, I gotta be dorky with this.

A Libertarian with a capital "L" means you're associated with the Libertarian party. A "small L" libertarian means you are libertarian according to the principles of libertarianism(someone who fundamentally believes in live-and-let-live and applies it to politics, and favors both economics and social freedom).

[dbx]

Economically conservative. I believe in freedom and less government. The only areas I do not agree with my conservative cohorts are on marriage of gay people and abortion.

Your statement perpetuates the belief that all "conservatives" believe that ^ way. They do not, and I am another who believes in what you mention above. However, I address the first part with; give them civil unions...and ALL rights afforded to married couples. However, do not call it marriage, as that's what heterosexuals have. To the second; I deplore the idea of abortion, but would never advocate a law that dictates what a woman does with her body (plz, lets not go there for now, k?).

Everyone needs a "moderate" position, but telling people "what they need" doesn't work well in this country. Having said that, "telling people what they need" And want, has become a Cottage Industry for liberal media.

People here argue about stupid $hit, like, green/red dots. Extrapolate this simple minded phenomena with voting for someone who promises to give you $hit for free. Nobody likes to (and almost NEVER does) admit, that they'll vote for someone who'll give then something for free. Everyone still with me? Yeah, when you put aside political ideology.....it boils down to the people in power being the ones who'll, "give the most $**** free"...to whatever segment that they appeal to. With liberals, it's "the people"....the fcking people who don't work or do $hit. For conservatives, it's the corporations...who actually EMPLOY people. Amazing difference of BS here....

Shocker? It shouldn't be, but it's fact. Yes, fact. You can extrapolate countless situations where people choose "whatever", because it will benefit them somehow.

My friends (no McCain), I warn you that we're already at the 49% line (govt. recipients...in some way), and that is a deadly number....that will influence and change elections to come. Yes, I'm saying that liberalism is about to win the day...and bring down this country, once, and for all.

[Wyomann]

Shocker? It shouldn't be, but it's fact. Yes, fact. You can extrapolate countless situations where people choose "whatever", because it will benefit them somehow.

My friends (no McCain), I warn you that we're already at the 49% line (govt. recipients...in some way), and that is a deadly number....that will influence and change elections to come. Yes, I'm saying that liberalism is about to win the day...and bring down this country, once, and for all.

Everyone votes to benefit themselves. I mean that's a given. Not necessarily monetarily or materially, but anything that improves your life could be a benefit such as raising the speed limit 5 more mph so you can get to work faster or have fun driving faster.

I believe the country is already over the edge. Nothing will change until it smacks us square in the face. We have a huge debt, so what? Our daily lives aren't that different. It's not until the flood gates overflow that people will realize their heads are up their asses.

[dbx]

Everyone votes to benefit themselves. I mean that's a given. Not necessarily monetarily or materially, but anything that improves your life could be a benefit such as raising the speed limit 5 more mph so you can get to work faster or have fun driving faster.

You left out one variable that should matter...and one that people should vote by; morality. This is where our country is failing...and at a rapid rate of derailing.

I believe the country is already over the edge. Nothing will change until it smacks us square in the face. We have a huge debt, so what? Our daily lives aren't that different. It's not until the flood gates overflow that people will realize their heads are up their asses.

Agreed

[EjnarKolinkar]

Italy is fux0r'd. http://www.economist.com/news/financ...id-crisis-life

The wasteful spenders like the US, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain are paying the price of wasting trillions on ... nothing. Their economies must be slower for decades to come while in this period of debt deflation.

I'm a mathematician so politics is noise to me.

I identify with this post. When it comes to economics I have no political party. I do read the Economist, and enjoy Bloomberg Businessweek magazine. I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative. I care less about who is morally right or opinions on BS sound bytes the news tries to pacify the masses with, and more about the fiduciary realities and responsibilities of governments. At least I try to keep it to that when discussing economic matters.

[mcichocki]

I'm a BAMF. Gonna standing overhead press 365lbs soon.

Basically the democrats don't want the flexibility to cut the $85billion from where they choose.... they just want a chance at increasing taxes again. Unbelievable. If they were able to pick and choose where the cuts came from they could get rid of some of the more wasteful areas instead of just a flat $85 billion across the board.

You're in beast press mode, for real! Anyhow, it's not just democrats, let's keep in mind BOTH mainstream parties are funded by the same lobbyists. I'd go so far as saying Repub & Dem elected officials are really 1 party. Let's call it the GREED party, shall we? And when they get out of office they just become lobbyists and the revolving door continues to spin. Look at the median income in NYC and DC. Tell me there isn't collusion between BOTH mainstream parties, both consolidating wealth and looking out for their sponsors and each over the people that elected them. Want honest elected officials? Pay them the same wage their constituents earn, no more living above the means of the herd they represent.

The ONLY thing the government should be investing in (spending towards) are growth inducing ventures or infrastructure projects that will lead to productivity again. They invest (use term loosely) for inflation, not growth. This is for several reasons but mainly because we export our debt and import most our needs. It behooves us to inflate, crush the people we import from and crush the savers in an attempt to stimulate consumerism. It's a well oiled machine, one that has the peons fighting amongst themselves with their eyes off the prize.

You left out one variable that should matter...and one that people should vote by; morality. This is where our country is failing...and at a rapid rate of derailing.

Democracy itself doesn't derail morality, but it sure does lend itself to the human instinctual slant towards gluttony & mob rule. I wonder if we'll ever see unity and people putting national well-being ahead of personal gain? I'm not religious in the least because I'm not an institution type, but I do believe in much of what religion suggests moral wise.

I warn you that we're already at the 49% line (govt. recipients...in some way), and that is a deadly number....that will influence and change elections to come. Yes, I'm saying that liberalism is about to win the day...and bring down this country, once, and for all.

Leftward slant for sure. They've outsourced our jobs and our currency, thus a stagnant economy. And both sides of the aisle profited greatly in doing this to the American people. Now they have people right where they want em, in their grasp. Handouts come with strings, you cannot be on the government t!t and be expected to bite the hand that feeds. Just wait till more boomers retire and drain the pool even further. Bond yields near negative. TICK TICK TICK

[dbx]

Democracy itself doesn't derail morality, but it sure does lend itself to the human instinctual slant towards gluttony & mob rule.

Yes, yes it does....or should I say...Yes, yes, it can...as we've seen?

I wonder if we'll ever see unity and people putting national well-being ahead of personal gain? I'm not religious in the least because I'm not an institution type, but I do believe in much of what religion suggests moral wise.

No, no you won't. It somehow ended with a generation that followed mine (most likely, EOMRAT and his kind )