Grey Champions and the Election of 2016

[2Legit2Quit]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. 

I read the book back when it came out, and came back to the theory recently with the American election. 

I've enjoyed catching up on all these great threads, but I can't help notice how partisan many of them seem to be. I prefer to take a big picture view. 

I could see Trump as the GC, but we'll have to wait for things to shake out. 

We had Trump, Bernie and Clinton, all candidates for the GC moniker. Bernie is still a player FWIW and could save the Dem party from what looks like certain death. 

I think fear of Trump is exaggerated, and fear of Clinton underestimated. 

In any case, there was no good choice and both paths lead to increased division. 

I see the 2T issues roaring back in this 4T. Half the boomers didn't buy into the peace-love thing. And the ones that did weren't grounded in reality. 

We will need a resolution of this culture war, and I hope it is through working together with mutual respect. 

I see this coming through the progressive Dems working together with elements on the right to reshape the two parties and ignore the bigoted, angry and divisive rhetoric from both establishments.

[pbrower2a]

I am tempted to see Donald Trump as a Grey Anti-Champion. Even before the inauguration he does much that worsens the political climate by becoming even more divisive and choosing to select almost entirely from among extremists. He has done nothing to tone down the white-supremacist rhetoric just short of KKK bigotry. His "my way or the highway" approach that one can tolerate in the private sector because there is always some other possible employer cannot be done at a national level because changing citizenship is not easy in either administrative or personal terms.

He begins with a very bad honeymoon. It might not be like the white bride announcing to her bigoted husband that she is already pregnant by a black man or a husband telling his naive wife that he is a compulsive gambler who smuggles drugs to finance his bad habit and expects her to become a mule in the drug trade... That's when parents get a call from a bus station in the middle of nowhere asking to get the offended or endangered spouse out of the situation. Things are not starting well. He has less than even a plurality support in the popular vote, and he acts as if he is the only possible focus of political support.

He begins badly by recent standards:

Favorable Ratings of Recent Presidents-Elect


Donald Trump    2016 Nov 9-13    42 55
Barack Obama    2008 Nov 7-9      68 27
George W. Bush 2000 Dec 15-17  59 36
Bill Clinton           1992 Nov 10-11  58 35 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-...aign=tiles

Dubya may have proved to be one of the worse Presidents in American history, but that assessment is only after the fact (two bungled wars, and an economic meltdown that might have been even more devastating had it not been for the military spending). But he started out about as popular as Bill Clinton did. Like Trump this year, Dubya also won the Presidency despite losing the electoral vote. He still started out far more popular than Donald Trump -- perhaps because he did not express ethnic and religious bigotry and did not show early signs of a dictatorial style of administration.

 Donald Trump has no political capital except the power that he wields or is allowed to wield. It will be difficult (if not impossible) for him to mend ways with people that he smeared on grounds of ethnicity or religion. He made contradictory and thus incompatible promises to usually-hostile parts of the electorate to get elected, and he will have to choose one to betray one group of people to whom he made promises to satisfy others. Just think of what that will do to approval ratings. He has chosen to surround himself with abrasive extremists, people who completely deny any the validity of the opinion of anyone who has any divergence in opinion. Such people demand blind loyalty from a People not accustomed to showing blind loyalty to a leader and his immediate subordinates who order the People about.

Of course, it is possible that the President will force his agenda along with the aid of an obedient Congress because the Republican party is now an authoritarian right-wing Party with no room for dissent on substantive issues, especially if the Republicans remove the filibuster in the Senate. Then the United States of America becomes effectively a dominant-Party state in which the political minority is rendered irrelevant. Perhaps with Congress enacting legislation that criminalizes dissent, establishes a secret police (an internal equivalent of the CIA), or controls the Democratic Party, America might have a political system in which political lockstep creates an efficient political system that gets things done -- if not with much concern for public opinion.

Even so, a recent Gallup poll shows that although the current President has an approval rating of 56% after starting having an approval rating of 62% in February 2009. To be sure, any President will have some ups and downs, and President Obama has had an approval rating as low as 40%. Of course there will be events, including legislative failures and international scrapes. But 40% is as low as it went for Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup...roval.aspx

Should there be a free election in America for the Presidency in 2020, then Americans will have much nostalgia for Barack Obama, and the Democratic nominee who most reminds America of the Obama who won decisively in 2008 will get the nomination and will win in a landslide, winning states that Republicans just do not win. The urban-rural and the regional divides will remain -- and perhaps even intensify. But Americans will be sick of 'reckless', 'abrasive', 'extremist', and 'dictatorial', and what follows Donald Trump could be the Grey Champion.

[pbrower2a]

Republican pols have pushed a culture rich in firearms, and now Donald Trump throws ethnic and religious bigotry onto a country awash in privately-owned, unregistered and unregulated firearms. Why does that sound dangerous?

A hint: for all its repression, the Soviet Union was fairly permissive about firearms. When it broke apart such places as Chechnya, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabach became rife with gun violence.

[Eric the Green]

(11-20-2016, 10:01 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote: Hi everyone, I'm new here. 

I read the book back when it came out, and came back to the theory recently with the American election. 

I've enjoyed catching up on all these great threads, but I can't help notice how partisan many of them seem to be. I prefer to take a big picture view. 

I could see Trump as the GC, but we'll have to wait for things to shake out. 

We had Trump, Bernie and Clinton, all candidates for the GC moniker. Bernie is still a player FWIW and could save the Dem party from what looks like certain death. 

I think fear of Trump is exaggerated, and fear of Clinton underestimated. 

In any case, there was no good choice and both paths lead to increased division. 

I see the 2T issues roaring back in this 4T. Half the boomers didn't buy into the peace-love thing. And the ones that did weren't grounded in reality. 

We will need a resolution of this culture war, and I hope it is through working together with mutual respect. 

I see this coming through the progressive Dems working together with elements on the right to reshape the two parties and ignore the bigoted, angry and divisive rhetoric from both establishments.

Welcome to the fray. Yes, I don't know if the people here are "partisan," but certainly opinionated, sometimes extreme and rather stuck. There may be some lurking readers who are less so.

We don't really know how much our fear of Trump is exaggerated, but the basis for such fear is very substantial, both before and since the election. The swing state, rust-belt voters simply ignored his total lack of qualifications and his right-wing passions. Now he has appointed noone but racist hotheads so far. It is certainly the fear of Hillary Clinton that was exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion, to the point where these voters had no idea at all of whom they were voting against. Not only was there was no basis for the corruption and even more ludicrous "criminal" charges against her, but none either for the fears that she was a warmonger. Now, instead of a professional and knowledgeable commander in chief and a compassionate leader, we have a temperamental, selfish, corrupt, uninformed deceiver and expert marketer of prejudice and fear. Shame on Americans.

The culture war has been reignited by the installation of this bigot in the White House, and continued GOPPER dominance guarantees NO progress that could ease social and economic tensions and resentments. Increased division is guaranteed, but after all, such is what I have predicted for decades now to occur in this era.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2016, 01:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 02:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 10:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 08:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Just like the 3T went on, and on, and on, it looks like the 4T will as well.

Although there is now a leveling off, longevity went way up between the end of WW2 and just a few years ago. Boomers ain't riding off into the sunset yet. There are still many opportunities for Gray Champions or collections of people who fill that role. This is especially true for Disco Boomers.

The last Boomers turn 70 in 2030. It could take that long.

...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Wrong! Several countries have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The only safe places in America in the event of a nuclear exchange will be places of neither military not economic significance. Political leadership in some other country will not allow their people to be turned into serfs or slaves. How many American losses can one expect in World War III?

During World War II, political polarization all but disappeared. If political polarization should disappear during the next four years in America it will be most likely because one side crushes any organized opposition.

So far I see no tendency toward conciliation by Donald Trump except to tell Democrats to support his authoritarian nightmare so that they can have some say on small things such as the routing of a highway.  I doubt that Americans are going to take a dictatorial President and a stooge Congress lying down. We already have many protests and demonstrations. Just because one has a shaky mandate (winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote) does not mean that one has a mandate for tyranny.

If one dislikes Donald Trump and his policies, then we have a model to emulate -- the heroic struggle for African-American civil rights. All 50 states this time.

And we have the 2nd Amendment. Mark these words, the "cosmopolitan" factions of the Left will come to love the 2nd Amendment. Those of us who are stocking up on weapons and ammo would gladly share with any who are motivated, if something like a Quisling scenario were to arise. There would be no political litmus test, as some things "trump" polity.

The scenario I see, is if CA's sane laws are over-ruled by Trump, and CA resists, and Trump tries to enforce his and his congress' edicts, and CA refuses, and then Trump invades, then CA will need to resist as a state, organize an army, defend our borders from the invader. We'll need an entire army, and maybe get some WMDs from North Korea or somewhere, anywhere....

Eric we have our own WMD, no need to get from any where else.

Without getting into the nuts and bolts of it (e.g. never show one's entire hand) we have ICBM design and build, aircraft design and build, as well as warhead pit design and build. The other parts needed would be a no brainer given the existing talent plus corporate not to mention .edu and .gov facilities we already have.

How do I know this? Again, without getting into too many details, I previously mentioned I am a 3rd generation techie. All three generations have worked with various aspects of what I wrote up above, at some point in our careers. Further hint ... think of where we live and consider what is available within a 50 mile radius. Now add in So Cal.

Yes, I was thinking the same after I wrote my earlier post.

[Mikebert]

Warren Dew Wrote:]Inequality trended up fairly smoothly in the 1980s and 1990s.  Since 2000, it was bounced around at a high level.  There was a peak in 2000, another peak in 2007, etc.  More recent peaks have been slightly higher but there is no longer a general upward trend.
 
I'm surprised if your measure of inequality doesn't catch these details.

Can you cite your method of inequality measurement and the data you used to obtain these results?

Quote:US participation in WWI was not at the level of an existential war, as WWII was.  They were two completely different things from the US standpoint.  WWII was a crisis war for the US; WWI was not, any more than the Vietnam War or the Gulf War were.

Why should this matter? The economy doesn’t care.
 

Quote:The stock market crash was not an exogenous event that just happened to affect inequality.  It was an endogenous effect with a random trigger.  The high inequality levels had set things up for a crash.  The crash did much of the redistribution from the top 1% to the rest of the top 10%, and WWII then redistributed to the remainder of the population.

The stock crash has relatively little effect.  Stocks when down but bonds went up.  Since the bond market was considerably larger than the stock market, it had to have held a larger fraction of elite wealth than the stock portion.  Hence the crash did not affect the elite very much.  You know this wasn’t their first rodeo, we had had many crashes and panics before.  Elites were prepared for major stock declines.  The stock market crash did have a major direct impact on elites, but it was NOT on their wealth.  It was on their belief system and behavior.
 

Quote:Trump owns actual property like the industrialists. 

You don’t know this. I very much doubt Trump owns much of anything. The man has intimated that he does pay income taxes.  If he were actually a billionaire he would pay a shitload of taxes. What person running for office lies about NOT paying taxes if in fact he HAD paid taxes. Nobody, so I suspect Trump wasn’t bullshitting us, when he implied he pays nothing in income taxes. Trump has said many times that he is a master of debt and is a dealmaker extraordinaire. He has gone bankrupt three times.  That tells me he plays things VERY close to the edge, he has to have balls the size of cantelopes (he sure acts it). Only a chump OWNS property.  Smart folks use other people’s money to buy property which they then get the exclusive use of.  I wonder if he ran for president in order to get out of a tight spot.  We’ll never know, by the time he leaves office he will have raked in enough cash to make it all worthwhile.  Well he will if he still has the cojones I think he does.

[Ragnarök_62]

Nihilist Moron Wrote:Hi Kinser!

Howdy, NM.  Long time, no see. Wecome aboard, etc.

Quote:I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

Uh,  Eric and Playwrite say we're doomed.

Quote:For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

  If you have SS, Costa Rica works.


Well, except for residents of San Jose, apparently. 

Quote:Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

LOL.

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2016, 05:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Inequality trended up fairly smoothly in the 1980s and 1990s.  Since 2000, it was bounced around at a high level.  There was a peak in 2000, another peak in 2007, etc.  More recent peaks have been slightly higher but there is no longer a general upward trend.
 
I'm surprised if your measure of inequality doesn't catch these details.

Can you cite your method of inequality measurement and the data you used to obtain these results?

Quote:US participation in WWI was not at the level of an existential war, as WWII was.  They were two completely different things from the US standpoint.  WWII was a crisis war for the US; WWI was not, any more than the Vietnam War or the Gulf War were.

Why should this matter? The economy doesn’t care.

I was looking at a graph of total income in the top 0.1%, top 1%, top 5%, and top 10%.  I can't find that graph on the web, but you can back it out from here:

https://infiniteidenticalpsychopaths.fil....png?w=700

It's based on IRS data, and you can find numerous similar graphs with a google image search if you don't trust that particular site.  For people in the top 10% but not in the top 1%, there's a massive increase in income share at the crash at the cost of the top 1%, but they lose that benefit to the bottom 90% in WWII.

The situation since 2000 is less clear in that graph, but you can see it if you examine all the curves carefully.  The 'bouncing around without really moving much' is visible in the curves for the top 1%.

As for why it matters that WWII was a crisis war, because it was on a much larger scale.  Both money and life expenditures were about 5x larger than in WWI.  WWI is a tiny blip compared to WWII for the U.S., both economically and socially.

I've already made my points with respect to most of the rest of your post, except for this point that is exceptionally naive:

Quote:If he were actually a billionaire he would pay a shitload of taxes.

Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

[Eric the Green]

Could America be so depraved as to elevate Steve Bannon to the presidency?

I see his chart, and he has a higher score than Trump, 9-3

Maybe he has already been defacto elevated to the presidency.

Remember Ivanka Trump, score 14-1. Better than any Republican OR Democrat I have scored. The new nepotistic dynasty has arrived.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2016, 07:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

I can't disagree with that one

[Mikebert]

Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.  He simply earns a tiny income on all that wealth.  The reason is simple.  He is a billionaires because he owns scores of thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway A-class (BKA), a stock which in 1980 already sold for the high price of $275 a share, making Buffet worth tens of millions of dollars.  BKA never splits and does not pay dividends.  The entirely of any returns comes from future price appreciation.  Today BKA sells foe 236K, making Buffet worth a thousand times more than he was in 1980, simply through price appreciation.  As you must know, you don’t pay taxes on unrealized capital gains.  Buffet lives rather modestly for a man of his wealth, and so takes a relatively small salary as CEO, and sells only a handful of shares each year.  So his income is small.  But he pays a pretty normal rate on the income he receives.

Trump, on the other hand, has claimed that his income in 2015 exceeded $557 million—though Fortune has pointed out that the presidential candidate appears to be confusing revenues with net income, and probably made closer to $177 million last year, before taxes, on which Fortune estimates that Trump paid a tax rate of 15%, or about $27 million.

If this estimate is remotely correct then Trump pays much more in taxes than Buffet.  But Trump has intimated that he doesn't pay income taxes.  Some have speculated that this is why he didn't release his returns.
Since his supporters appear to already believe that Trump pays no taxes and have no problem with that, then this cannot be the reason Trump refused to release the returns.  The only conceivable secret he could be hiding is that he is not as rich as he claims to be and in fact is a failure as a businessman. 

As president he stands to gain hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, which will soon correct this issue.  Bush made his money from local government money and it appears that Trump plans to do the same, but on a far larger scale, with federal money.

[Warren Dew]

(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

[Mikebert]

(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.  Did you bribe politicians to get this arrangement?


The same thing would be true if you held a portfolio of growth stocks that don't pay dividends.  Your net worth would grow and you would never pay taxes on this "income".  Have you never done any investing?

This tax can still be avoided by giving the estate to charity.  Buffet has already started giving it away, probably at the urging of his friend Bill Gates who has already given a big chunk of his fortune to his foundation.  Most of Buffet's estate is going to the Gates foundation as well.  SO both of the great big fortunes will never be taxed, just as the Ford, Rockefellar and Carnegie fortunes before them.  Some elites actually seek to gain the use of their fortunes and to do this requires them to realize gains which gives them income that is then taxed.

[Warren Dew]

(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.

[Mikebert]

(11-27-2016, 01:46 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.

401K withdrawals only occur if you live long enough.  All of this is tax avoidance by delaying realization of gains.  Rich people don't need their money for spending, as you astutely pointed out.   The only value of larger fortunes is either status (e.g. money is how you keep score) or power, neither of which has to be spent to have value. Concentrated wealth is dangerous to the health of a republic, which is why the founders avoided entailment.  Opposition to estate taxes, which your preferred party pushes relentlessly, is the modern equivalent of entailment.

[Kinser79]

(11-21-2016, 05:55 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Hi Kinser!

I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

I knew it was only a matter of time.

As for those who want to leave the country my view is they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

And yes the next four years will be interesting. I expect decentralization and dismantling the New Deal to the be the second order after the wall and re-asserting our national sovereignty. Maybe we can get back to being a union of states again.

[pbrower2a]

(12-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 05:55 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Hi Kinser!

I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

I knew it was only a matter of time.

As for those who want to leave the country my view is they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

And yes the next four years will be interesting.  I expect decentralization and dismantling the New Deal to the be the second order after the wall and re-asserting our national sovereignty.  Maybe we can get back to being a union of states again.

In a prior incarnation as a Marxist, you would have loved this because it would have created the circumstances in which a Socialist insurrection becomes likely -- absence of democracy, corrupt and incompetent leadership, suppression of non-violent opposition... something like Cuba in the late 1950s, Cuba until then the most economically-advanced country to have had a Marxist revolution.

The next four years will be interesting in the sense that a house fire is interesting -- if your idea of entertainment is destruction of a fine old house with some fine antique furniture in it . I think it will be sickening to watch as the ravaged contents once precious are removed.

I almost expect Donald Trump to make a sick parody of a line in JFK's inaugural address to "Ask what your country can do TO you".
Donald Trump is the real-life Berzelius Windrip (Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here).

[igranderojo]

Grey Champion

From the book "The Fourth Turning,” the Grey Champion is first a fictional character, and second a personification of the Prophet Generation.  Worshiping an individual (such as Trump) as a Grey Champion misses the point being made by Strauss and Howe when they wrote about Generations and the 4T.  Trump does not communicate morals, ethics or ideals, has no bond with Millennials, and does not stand in the way of authoritarian aggression.  Therefore Trump is not a valid representation of a Grey Champion (during Elderhood) from the Prophet Generation as defined by Strauss and Howe.

A valid example of the Grey Champion might be:
1. Water Protectors standing in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
2. Standing in the path of coal and oil trains.
3. Standing up in court suing the Federal Gov. for Due Process to protect life and liberty of today's children threatened by consequences of climate change.  

As a result, Jim Quinn of the Burning Platform is wrong to label Presidents past and President-elect as Grey Champions.

[Kinser79]

(12-04-2016, 07:52 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Kinser -

I'm having some trouble navigating this forum, esp the multiple embedded quotes that make it difficult to tell who wrote what. 

But from what I can tell, the liberals on this forum are much like the freaked-out liberals running the MSM. They still haven't figured out that insulting "flyover country" and demanding safe spaces won't win you any friends. And even Jill Stein, whom I used to respect a great deal, is now losing her shit. 

My lib cousin told me before the election that the founders set up the electoral college because they (correctly) didn't trust the public. That elitist mentality has now come back to smack her in the face. Karma.

That's about all I have to say at this point. Might check in again in the future but like I said this forum isn't the easiest for me to read.

Take care!

It isn't just the libtards who are losing their proverbial shit. Coastal neo-cons and the cuckservatives are losing their shit as well. Just look at Alphabet Soup. He's a coastal Neocon and he's clearly losing his shit. But then again the Neo-cons themselves are derivative of Trotskyism anyway so he may fit in with the Democrats for other reasons.

@PBR.

Peaceful protests? I take it you don't get out much. Usually BLM is rioting when they're not killing the police. The fact is that he will at the very least take out the old orders of both parties. The Democrats being a collection of interest groups held together by an ideology (social democracy) and the Republicans a collection of ideologies held together by an interest group (the chamber of commerce).

My mother has been losing her shit as well. Saying things like with Trump we're going to end up with something we don't want. Honestly I don't care. Even if he does nothing but burn the place to the ground that is still progress because we've been on pause for 8 years now. The clock is ticking and the turning is half over.

[Warren Dew]

(11-29-2016, 03:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:46 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote: The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.

401K withdrawals only occur if you live long enough.  All of this is tax avoidance by delaying realization of gains.  Rich people don't need their money for spending, as you astutely pointed out.   The only value of larger fortunes is either status (e.g. money is how you keep score) or power, neither of which has to be spent to have value. Concentrated wealth is dangerous to the health of a republic, which is why the founders avoided entailment.  Opposition to estate taxes, which your preferred party pushes relentlessly, is the modern equivalent of entailment.

Wrong about 401ks.  If you don't live long enough, then your heirs have to start withdrawals.  Taxes on them may be deferred until after death, but they cannot be deferred forever, the way Buffett's schemes do.

I agree that concentrated wealth is societally problematic.  If he were actually likely to pay estate taxes, I'd be in favor of them.  He isn't, though, so some other method of dealing with the problem is necessary.