PDA

View Full Version : Who is John Galt?



junbe
06-01-2010, 07:20 AM
Your assignment, before you make another post, is to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." If you read it back in '57, maybe it's time to reread it.

Jack

road kill
06-01-2010, 08:03 AM
Why read it?
We are livin' it........


rk

Buzz
06-01-2010, 08:53 AM
I've read it twice. Do you have a point?

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2010, 09:41 AM
We are livin' it........

It is downright eerie how accurately Ayn Rand was able to describe the course of events that have taken place in our society since she wrote that book.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2010, 09:53 AM
It is downright eerie how accurately Ayn Rand was able to describe the course of events that have taken place in our society since she wrote that book.
And yet, we now live in an age with lower taxes, greater opportunities for individuals to profit directly from their efforts, fewer social limitations on behavior (a big deal to Rand), and less governmental regulation than existed when Ayn Rand wrote the book. For all the complaints about our inexorable move toward socialism and government totalitarianism, I would love to see evidence -- tax rate changes over the last 50 years, greater restrictions on corporate and personal behavior, etc. -- to support the thesis.

Marvin S
06-01-2010, 12:05 PM
And yet, we now live in an age with lower taxes, greater opportunities for individuals to profit directly from their efforts, fewer social limitations on behavior (a big deal to Rand), and less governmental regulation than existed when Ayn Rand wrote the book. For all the complaints about our inexorable move toward socialism and government totalitarianism, I would love to see evidence -- tax rate changes over the last 50 years, greater restrictions on corporate and personal behavior, etc. -- to support the thesis.

If you actually believe that tripe, then you are less of an intellectual powerhouse than some of those less knowledgeable on this forum believe you to be.

It is our money, & it is being wasted unnecessarily!!!!!!

Marvin S
06-01-2010, 12:50 PM
Your assignment, before you make another post, is to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." If you read it back in '57, maybe it's time to reread it.

Jack

We have been holders of the Acorn family of funds for many years, & they have treated us well :D. Contrary to what the few lefty's on this forum espouse, this is where I get my view of what's going on. These people have a track record of excellence, a word not in the left's vocabulary, & along with a few other publications provide a sensible commentary as to which direction the country is going.

In this semi-annual report Chuck McQuaid starts Squirrel Chatter II with the heading Big Government. & it starts with the Atlas Shrugged: In Mr McQuaid words, which I will take the liberty to excerpt, "I read a lot as part of my job & I also enjoy reading for pleasure. I typically read non-fiction - largely books on history, economics & politics. I haven't made time for fiction, until recently, when I read my 1st fiction in decades, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Written in 1957, the book has a curious history. In 1991 it was ranked a distant second to the Bible as most influential to readers of the Book of the Month club. It's sales have recently been surging, hitting a record 500,000 copies sold in 2009. What I see as the book's eerie parallels with recent events have likely caused it's surge in popularity.

The heroes in Atlas Shrugged are entrepeneurs who create prosperity, & it's villains are federal government bureaucrats who regulate & tax. Bureaucrats never let a crisis go to waste & use each crisis to obtain more power & create more regulations. The bureaucrats are economically illiterate, so new regulation further hurts the economy."

Businesses fail, but those with the right friends get bailed out. Some bonds are made whole, others not. Patent rights are given "voluntarily".

It appears to Mr McQuaid that Atlas Shrugged may be as much prophecy as fiction.

Mr McQuaid also believes the government created the HC crisis. Mandates & standardized payment schedules being 2 of the bigger culprits. As he says Life, Home & Car insurance are owned by the individual rather than being owned by the employer which is the case with 90% of all HC policies. State laws just add to the confusion.

Junbe, I would go further & say "We The People" & "Fountain Head" are also excellent reads. The lefty's should read "We the People", it would show them their goal :(.

dnf777
06-01-2010, 12:53 PM
If you actually believe that tripe, then you are less of an intellectual powerhouse than some of those less knowledgeable on this forum believe you to be.

It is our money, & it is being wasted unnecessarily!!!!!!

As much as I often disagree with you Marvin, I always take heed of your comments.....but I do not recall ANYTHING about our money NOT being wasted. I think we can all agree on that. Whether its being wasted on corporate tax breaks or feeding hungry children is where political differences lie, but I think we all agree its being wasted.

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2010, 01:59 PM
And yet, we now live in an age with lower taxes,

That may change if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire. That seems to be the "plan". Taxes will increase without any of the Congresspeople having to vote for a tax increase.


greater opportunities for individuals to profit directly from their efforts,

At least if you are in banking :-) or an illegal resident :-)

fewer social limitations on behavior (a big deal to Rand),

Fewer limitations for some, more limitations for others.

and less governmental regulation than existed when Ayn Rand wrote the book.

I find that hard to believe after hearing that all toy manufacturers will have new regulations for testing toys after the lead paint from China debacle.

Does govt "regulation" include standardized payments for govt programs like Medicare & Medicaid ... thereby regulating what health care providers can charge?


For all the complaints about our inexorable move toward socialism and government totalitarianism, I would love to see evidence -- tax rate changes over the last 50 years,

We'll just have to see how the formual works after the current tax rates expire to see how they compare with the previous 50 years.

greater restrictions on corporate and personal behavior, etc. -- to support the thesis.

Obamacare may be a good start on making a change in this. A fine for a certain behavior might be considered a "restriction" of sorts.



There is something very wrong with only 50% of the population paying taxes.

Buzz
06-01-2010, 02:08 PM
There is something very wrong with only 50% of the population paying taxes.


Given that increase in taxes results in a decline in revenues, do you advocate increasing taxes on this 50%, or do you advocate further decreases for the 50% that do pay?

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2010, 02:29 PM
Given that increase in taxes results in a decline in revenues, do you advocate increasing taxes on this 50%, or do you advocate further decreases for the 50% that do pay?

I believe that it requires a close examination of how it is determined who pays taxes or doesn't, and in what amounts.

I do not have the information to do this examination and evaluation.

It boils down to 1/2 the population generating the wealth that supports the other 1/2. Even a small amount of tax on 150 million people (who currently don't pay taxes) would be a windfall to whittling down the deficit.

Logic would dictate, that since these 150 million do not pay anything now, it could not result in decreased revenue if they paid "something" ... even $100/year; even $50/year.

The logic you cite only applies if you are increasing tax on those already paying some tax.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2010, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=623241#post623241)
And yet, we now live in an age with lower taxes,

That may change if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire. That seems to be the "plan". Taxes will increase without any of the Congresspeople having to vote for a tax increase.


greater opportunities for individuals to profit directly from their efforts,

At least if you are in banking :smile: or an illegal resident :smile:

fewer social limitations on behavior (a big deal to Rand),

Fewer limitations for some, more limitations for others.

and less governmental regulation than existed when Ayn Rand wrote the book.

I find that hard to believe after hearing that all toy manufacturers will have new regulations for testing toys after the lead paint from China debacle.

Does govt "regulation" include standardized payments for govt programs like Medicare & Medicaid ... thereby regulating what health care providers can charge?


For all the complaints about our inexorable move toward socialism and government totalitarianism, I would love to see evidence -- tax rate changes over the last 50 years,

We'll just have to see how the formual works after the current tax rates expire to see how they compare with the previous 50 years.

greater restrictions on corporate and personal behavior, etc. -- to support the thesis.

Obamacare may be a good start on making a change in this. A fine for a certain behavior might be considered a "restriction" of sorts.There is something very wrong with only 50% of the population paying taxes.
Even if the Bush tax cuts expire, we will still be looking at tax rates that are significantly lower than in 1957 when the book was published. In part because of lower taxes and in part because of technology improvements, it is much easier for a small business to be launched and to grow enough to make its owners wealthy than was the case in 1957. At the other extreme, there are many fewer controls on the ability of major corporations to create monopolies without governmental interference, for banks to engage in any kind of business and for other major businesses to prosper than was true in 1957. There are more laws today that prevent businesses and individuals from denying opportunities to others based on race, religion, gender, etc. There are fewer constraints based on politics (1957 was the height of McCarthyism and the black lists), global reach, etc. With respect to governmental regulation, there is more of a mixed bag. Anti-trust litigation was much more prevalent in 1957 than today. Banking laws prevented interstate banking, global banking, or business crossover between S&L, commercial, and investment banking. All telephone companies and utilities operated as intensely regulated, government controlled monopolies. Communication companies operated under much tighter constraints over ownership and content than exist today. Buying liquor in my state (Tennessee) meant bootlegging because possession and sale were illegal. In Oak Ridge, the primary distributor of illegal liquor was the police department, which owned its own still to convert cooking sherry into drinking sherry (however bad) and also resold the liquor they confiscated during raids. If you were black, you were forced to attend separate and not even close to equal schools and were excluded from every restaurant in town. If you conducted almost any business activity on Sunday, you would be fined or jailed. In 1958, several boys in our high school were expelled when they had their hair cut into mohawks. A boy in my elementary school was suspended when he showed up with a "DA" hair style. Prayers at the beginning of every school day were mandatory, and every prayer was drawn from the New Testament (we needed to make sure the Jews got the message). Where in America today is the government directly involved in imposing such a rigid sense of social order? And no, the government was not involved in setting rates for physician services in 1957. There was no such thing as Medicare and Medicaid. It was accepted that physicians would be paid nothing for much of the service they provided. My doctor worked three days per month providing free care at a clinic in the Cumberland Mountains where people from miles around walked in hoping to be helped. Most were not. Old people without assets generally had the good graces to die at home without care for problems that would be treated today. Is that the kind of freedom that represents the "change" we want?

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2010, 04:01 PM
Jeff, I won't quote your whole post ... but it boils down to are we closer now, than we have been before to: to each according to his need; from each according to his ability?

I think we are.


because of lower taxes and in part because of technology improvements, it is much easier for a small business to be launched and to grow enough to make its owners wealthy than was the case in 1957.

Some small business owners might disagree with this.


for banks to engage in any kind of business

I guess so, since we don't have any basic usury laws that would preclude credit card companies from charging 30% interest? And even the NY Times ran an editorial on how weak the newest law on financial reform is.


and for other major businesses to prosper than was true in 1957.[/

I don't believe that back in 1957 the govt mandated the mileage standards for auto makers. Would auto makers not have smartened up without govt mandates?

The State of PA has mandated that utility companies decrease electrical usage to certain levels on a certain timetable or be fined for failing to meet the reduction quota. That will reach into everyone's life who uses electricity.


All telephone companies and utilities operated as intensely regulated, government controlled monopolies.

I still have access to only one phone company, one electric company, and one cable TV company. To remove the regulation without removing the monopoly doesn't serve much good.


In 1958, several boys in our high school were expelled when they had their hair cut into mohawks.

Ironically, we have come full circle as some schools now believe dress codes would be beneficial.


Old people without assets generally had the good graces to die at home without care for problems that would be treated today. Is that the kind of freedom that represents the "change" we want?

Obamacare could give us "that kind of freedom" ... not the "change" most people envisioned when they pulled the lever for him in 08.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2010, 04:32 PM
Jeff, I won't quote your whole post ... but it boils down to are we closer now, than we have been before to: to each according to his need; from each according to his ability?

I think we are.
....
Obviously, it is hard to address that statement without some definition. To use a simple definition, I would suggest looking at the median income in each period and the percentage of the population earning more than three times the median income in the same periods. That gives you a crude but explicit view of income distribution. If your statement is correct, I would expect to see a decline in the percentage of the population earning at least three times the median income because of the shift of resources from the highest income groups to meet the needs of the lowest income groups. By contrast, a shift in the reverse direction -- a shrinkage in the percent of the population earning three times the median income -- would indicate that your assertion is false.

What we actually see is that in 1957, the median income was $5,000 and that 1.85% of the population earned more than $15,000. In 2008, the median income was $50,000 and the percentage of the population earning more that $150,000 was 20.6% (sources: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-030.pdf and http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf). To me, that suggests that your assertion is not just incorrect but way off base. One could do more sophisticated analyses, and factor in more variables, but there is no question that, by any reasoned measure, that income has shifted dramatically toward the wealthiest segments of the population over the last 50 years in America which is incompatible with the notion that we have become more socialist in the same period.

Marvin S
06-01-2010, 07:59 PM
As much as I often disagree with you Marvin, I always take heed of your comments.....but I do not recall ANYTHING about our money NOT being wasted. I think we can all agree on that. Whether its being wasted on corporate tax breaks or feeding hungry children is where political differences lie, but I think we all agree its being wasted.

When you reach the point that you agree with me more than you disagree you will be a much wiser individual :o. The inference by the original poster was that taxes are not an unnecessary burden. He disappeared when some low hanging fruit became available :).

I don't believe in corporate federal tax breaks, & would like to see the policy of incentives to get businesses to locate in a particular state stopped. If it's not available to all then it should be available to none. Beyond that I believe in free & fair markets, were more individuals in emerging markets able to find gainful employment there would be less chaos in the world. Does it make you happy to know that many of the products coming from China are done in sweat shop conditions? But on the OH, a bad job is better than no job.

As for feeding the vulnerable, no issue with that, but when they show in Air Jordan's & a really nice jacket somethings out of whack. What I would do beyond what is done is to examine the root cause. Possibly sterilization for the mom & a vasectomy for the absent father would work as a deterrent. The big issue is that those administering the progtrams have a vested interest in perpetuation. Just like drugs, fix the program, wouldn't need so many cops :cool:.

What I would really like to get back to is the original subject junbe presented, what about Ayn Rand's novels?

depittydawg
06-01-2010, 08:42 PM
If you actually believe that tripe, then you are less of an intellectual powerhouse than some of those less knowledgeable on this forum believe you to be.

It is our money, & it is being wasted unnecessarily!!!!!!

Which part is being wasted? The trillion that goes to Military Spending each and every year? How about the 40 billion that goes to subsidize Oil Conglomerates each year? Or maybe The Homeland Security Budget?
Or perhaps it's the local taxes that are being wasted. Should we privatize our police forces? How about Fire Departments? Privite roads and bridges. Woul you rather pay tolls for profit or taxes to build and maintain them?
We privatized our hospitals over the last 20 years. Hows that working out? Or maybe we should just scrap Social Security. Toss it. Right now. How many on this board are collecting Social Security? How many have parents or grandparents collecting it? You ready to step in and fill the void so we can cut that program out right now? Or maybe medicare? Retired folks don't really need that do you? Oh, lets not forget eduction. We don't need public schools and public universities. Let everybody pay Ivy League prices to get an education. Damn socialism anyway. This is America. We don't need it!
Taxes are socialism. It's my money.

Gerry Clinchy
06-02-2010, 08:20 AM
What we actually see is that in 1957, the median income was $5,000 and that 1.85% of the population earned more than $15,000. In 2008, the median income was $50,000 and the percentage of the population earning more that $150,000 was 20.6% (sources: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-030.pdf and http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf). To me, that suggests that your assertion is not just incorrect but way off base. One could do more sophisticated analyses, and factor in more variables, but there is no question that, by any reasoned measure, that income has shifted dramatically toward the wealthiest segments of the population over the last 50 years in America which is incompatible with the notion that we have become more socialist in the same period.

I'm not sure this statistic totally addresses the question: are we closer now, than we have been before to: to each according to his need; from each according to his ability?

In 1957, when the median income was $5000, gas was $.25 a gallon. Today it is $2.79 (subject to change by $1 upward at any given moment!) ... that is a multiple of 11 (while the median income figure has increased by a multiple of only 10).

Back in 1957, cable TV did not exist. Everybody had an antenna. Today there is hardly anyone who pays less than $50 (including taxes) for the least expensive cable TV service. Interestingly, when I drive through some of the lowest income areas of our 3 local cities, there is hardly ANY home that does not have a TV satellite dish mounted on it.

It is not clear whether the median income figures you cite take into account inflation.

And it's possible that you may not believe this is the only statistic that is pertinent, as you stated on another thread:


I agree that we are facing the potential for long term social and economic instability. However, I believe that the massive shift of wealth to a smaller and smaller portion of the population, and the virtual destruction of our middle class are the primary factors contributing to this trend.

This statistic says the middle class has shrunk; whereas the median income statistic might indicate the middle class has increased.

We could go on playing a statistics game, but we are really talking about a "concept"; a mental outlook that is subscribed to by the general populace and/or those who make the laws and create govt programs.

Buzz
06-02-2010, 09:00 AM
How do today's tax rates compare to when the book was written in 1957?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/1957taxes.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2010taxrates.jpg

How about before the Bush tax cuts?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2000taxes.jpg

The top rate today is at 35% starting at $373,650, in 1957 a 34% rate kicked in at $16,000. So today's 35% rate kicks in at a level 23 times where it did in 1957. The median income of $5000 in 1957 paid a marginal rate of 22%, whereas the median income of $50,000 today pays a marginal rate of 15%.

junbe
06-02-2010, 09:57 AM
I've read it twice. Do you have a point?


I thought the book brought up some points that would be great for a discussion on this forum. Maybe someone who has not read the book would take an interest and read the book.

Thanks for asking.

Jack

Buzz
06-02-2010, 10:06 AM
I thought the book brought up some points that would be great for a discussion on this forum. Maybe someone who has not read the book would take an interest and read the book.

Thanks for asking.

Jack


I wasn't trying to be smart. I was just curious specifically how the book applied to current events.

Goldenboy
06-02-2010, 10:33 AM
Read it for the third time last week. Great ideas, entirely relevant today (at least, to me), too long by half. For whatever it's worth, Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand.

Marvin S
06-02-2010, 11:23 AM
Read it for the third time last week. Great ideas, entirely relevant today (at least, to me), too long by half. For whatever it's worth, Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand.

In word maybe, by deed he definitely was not. His income was based on speeches & his ownership of government bonds. I read somewhere that it was in the millions, not bad for a lifelong government employee :(.

depittydawg
06-02-2010, 12:58 PM
Read it for the third time last week. Great ideas, entirely relevant today (at least, to me), too long by half. For whatever it's worth, Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand.

Here is Greenspan's testimony of shocked disbelief that the system he swallowed so deep eventually crashed so hard.

Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Thursday he is “shocked” at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and said he was “partially” wrong to resist regulation of some securities.

…”this crisis, however, has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined,” …

…”Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief,” …
alan greenspan

1NarlyBar
06-02-2010, 01:44 PM
How do today's tax rates compare to when the book was written in 1957?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/1957taxes.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2010taxrates.jpg

How about before the Bush tax cuts?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2000taxes.jpg

The top rate today is at 35% starting at $373,650, in 1957 a 34% rate kicked in at $16,000. So today's 35% rate kicks in at a level 23 times where it did in 1957. The median income of $5000 in 1957 paid a marginal rate of 22%, whereas the median income of $50,000 today pays a marginal rate of 15%.


What I put in BOLD is only true if you're filing Jointly.

If you are single or filing separately there is only a 1% change comparing '57 and '10 tax rates.

Plus in this day and age, most married couples both work. So, their combined salary would put them in the next bracket.

YardleyLabs
06-02-2010, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure this statistic totally addresses the question: are we closer now, than we have been before to: to each according to his need; from each according to his ability?

In 1957, when the median income was $5000, gas was $.25 a gallon. Today it is $2.79 (subject to change by $1 upward at any given moment!) ... that is a multiple of 11 (while the median income figure has increased by a multiple of only 10).

Back in 1957, cable TV did not exist. Everybody had an antenna. Today there is hardly anyone who pays less than $50 (including taxes) for the least expensive cable TV service. Interestingly, when I drive through some of the lowest income areas of our 3 local cities, there is hardly ANY home that does not have a TV satellite dish mounted on it.

It is not clear whether the median income figures you cite take into account inflation.

And it's possible that you may not believe this is the only statistic that is pertinent, as you stated on another thread:



This statistic says the middle class has shrunk; whereas the median income statistic might indicate the middle class has increased.

We could go on playing a statistics game, but we are really talking about a "concept"; a mental outlook that is subscribed to by the general populace and/or those who make the laws and create govt programs.

Gerry,

I didn't use inflation adjusted numbers because they are actually irrelevant. The measure I was giving is actually a measure of the extent of income disparity in the country. The traditional measure of this is based on income levels by population quintiles with a specific formula. The measure I provided was much easier to come up with quickly and gives the same flavor. What it basically shows is a country that in 1957, was relatively egalitarian without huge gaps between the highest paid income groups and the lowest paid income groups. By contrast, today we have a society in which the majority of the population earns dramatically less than the top 20% and a much greater proportion of total income is earned by a very small group at the top. Given that one measure of socialism is a leveling of incomes, the 1857 distribution is more "socialist" than the current distribution and your thesis is incorrect. I can think of many ways to refine the analysis. However, if anything, I have understated the extent to which income and wealth have shifted from the lower 80% to the top 20% over the last fifty years in America. This is not a healthy trend when taken to the extremes that we now have and contributes to social unrest in the face of economic injustice. For what it is worth, I actually believe that some of the shift was healthy. The 1957 income distribution reflected the exigencies of the Depression and WWII when it was considered unseemly to earn too much given the great needs of so many. Now, however, we have taken the Adam Smith philosophy and said that if a little bit of greed is good, then an obscenely greedy man is like a god to be worshiped.

junbe
06-03-2010, 06:26 PM
In literature one can interpret the author’s presentation based on their life experience and interests. I immediately thought of field trials as I was reading Atlas Shrugged. It starts out with a family, descendents of a railroad baron, running a railroad based in New York with an estate on the Hudson River. I immediately thought of the non-fictitious railroad barons, the Harriman’s, with their estate Arden on the Hudson. The next step is to take the characters in the book and try to find the closest similarities to those I have known in field trials. Certainly I wondered did anyone else when they read the book think of Harriman as the railroad baron when they read Atlas Shrugged?
It certainly is a shame that W. A. Harriman is not in the Retriever Hall of Fame, because he certainly was one of the patrons of our sport. His Arden Kennels are of significant interest in the history of the sport. He imported Labrador Retrievers and made them one of the most popular dogs in America. He also brought over game keepers and conducted field trials at three of his estates. The first FC Labrador of record was owned by W. A. Harriman.

Jack

depittydawg
06-03-2010, 07:24 PM
In word maybe, by deed he definitely was not. His income was based on speeches & his ownership of government bonds. I read somewhere that it was in the millions, not bad for a lifelong government employee :(.

Have to correct you on this. The Federal Reserve is a "private enterprise". Contrary to popular belief, it is not government owned or controlled. Alan Greenspan has never been a government employee. Here is a good link I found that describes the Fed.
http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

Marvin S
06-03-2010, 10:12 PM
Have to correct you on this. The Federal Reserve is a "private enterprise". Contrary to popular belief, it is not government owned or controlled. Alan Greenspan has never been a government employee. Here is a good link I found that describes the Fed.
http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

I am aware of their perceived status :). If they are not with the gov, why does the POTUS appoint the head of the Fed, would be my question.

Buzz
06-04-2010, 10:25 AM
What I put in BOLD is only true if you're filing Jointly.

If you are single or filing separately there is only a 1% change comparing '57 and '10 tax rates.

Plus in this day and age, most married couples both work. So, their combined salary would put them in the next bracket.


Can't really dispute that singles really take it in the shorts. However, the top rate that they would ever be expected to pay is much different than it was in 1957.

The fact that both spouses work in most marriages does not change the fact that median household income is $50,000.

Gerry Clinchy
09-07-2012, 07:27 PM
Clip from Atlas Shrugged Part II
http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/atlas-shrugged-part-2-trailer?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Watch+the+New+Atlas+Shrugged+Part+II+T railer+Now&utm_campaign=20120906_m113443743_Watch+the+Atlas+S hrugged+Part+II+Trailer+Now&utm_term=Watch+the+Official+Atlas+Shrugged+Part+II +Trailer+now

JDogger
09-07-2012, 11:56 PM
Clip from Atlas Shrugged Part II
http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/atlas-shrugged-part-2-trailer?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Watch+the+New+Atlas+Shrugged+Part+II+T railer+Now&utm_campaign=20120906_m113443743_Watch+the+Atlas+S hrugged+Part+II+Trailer+Now&utm_term=Watch+the+Official+Atlas+Shrugged+Part+II +Trailer+now
It is a movie, Gerry. Just like 'The Lord of the Rings' , and 'Red Dawn' A movie, just a movie. That's all...
There are no secret meanings, no hidden truths, no prognastications waiting to unfold....JD

Gerry Clinchy
09-08-2012, 12:52 AM
It is a movie, Gerry. Just like 'The Lord of the Rings' , and 'Red Dawn' A movie, just a movie. That's all...
There are no secret meanings, no hidden truths, no prognastications waiting to unfold....JD

Did I say there were secret meanings?

JDogger
09-08-2012, 01:27 AM
Did I say there were secret meanings?

No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

john fallon
09-08-2012, 08:45 AM
With all the conjecture regarding the state of the nation in 2016 were BHO to be re-elected,it would seem that the Objectivist* prognostications of Ayn Rand presented to us in this movie, depecting a possible scnerio, is very apropos.

* http://andrej.com/objectivism/

john

ARay11
09-08-2012, 11:23 AM
How do today's tax rates compare to when the book was written in 1957?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/1957taxes.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2010taxrates.jpg

How about before the Bush tax cuts?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/2000taxes.jpg

The top rate today is at 35% starting at $373,650, in 1957 a 34% rate kicked in at $16,000. So today's 35% rate kicks in at a level 23 times where it did in 1957. The median income of $5000 in 1957 paid a marginal rate of 22%, whereas the median income of $50,000 today pays a marginal rate of 15%.

I have looked at these numbers in the past, and spent a little time looking over them. It does appear at first blush that we are paying a lower tax rate. HOWEVER.... my question, which no one seems to be able to answer, is:
What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate during those years?

Gerry Clinchy
09-08-2012, 11:32 AM
No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

Relax, JD. I didn't see a point in starting a new thread for a very brief post. So I just did a search for "Atlas Shrugged" and picked up on the first thread that showed up that looked related. I didn't look at the date.

Sometimes there are no secret meanings.

huntinman
09-08-2012, 12:13 PM
No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

Jdog, why are you so angry?

Uncle Bill
09-08-2012, 01:11 PM
Jdog, why are you so angry?

Hugh is ALWAYS in a angry mood...like many that bought into their "empty suit in the White House"...and they have no way to defend the actions of him OR their party.

Thanks for reviving this thread, Gerry. It's especially enlightening to read some of the posts of various members of the left that are no longer among us. Even the brilliant photog has packed in his lexicon and moved away, no doubt to lead the Democrats in their vote to exclude God from their platform.

While I missed the original posting of this thread, let me concur with what Jack had to say about Mr. Harriman. He was indeed an Icon of the Retriever growth in this nation, and should be remembered by all of us, whether we are involved in field trials, hunt tests, or just hunting. All of us that own and love a retriever for whatever purpose, owe him a thank you.

UB

menmon
09-08-2012, 02:03 PM
I have looked at these numbers in the past, and spent a little time looking over them. It does appear at first blush that we are paying a lower tax rate. HOWEVER.... my question, which no one seems to be able to answer, is:
What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate during those years?

Much lower if you were in the higher brackets because of the loopholes, but no different than now for the lower bracket individuals that could not take advantage of the loopholes

Gerry Clinchy
09-08-2012, 02:15 PM
Much lower if you were in the higher brackets because of the loopholes, but no different than now for the lower bracket individuals that could not take advantage of the loopholes

Do I read this correctly: You are saying that the rich are now taxed more, and the middle & lower income levels are about the same.

Yet, the rich are still not paying their fair share?

mngundog
09-08-2012, 02:20 PM
Do I read this correctly: You are saying that the rich are now taxed more, and the middle & lower income levels are about the same.

Yet, the rich are still not paying their fair share?
No you did not read it correctly.

Buzz
09-08-2012, 02:41 PM
I have looked at these numbers in the past, and spent a little time looking over them. It does appear at first blush that we are paying a lower tax rate. HOWEVER.... my question, which no one seems to be able to answer, is:
What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate during those years?


I don't really want to get involved in the discussions here again, but since you directed this at me, I'll try and give you an answer. Here is a graph I posted here quite a while ago. You have to sit and look it over a bit to grasp what it all means, but it is the clearest representation of what has happened to effective tax rates that I have ever found.

I won't spend time explaining the methodology. If you're interested you can look over the site yourself if you want to try and make a judgement on the veracity of the information. I think reading the information on the page I provided the link to below is worthwhile.

I got the link to the graph here: http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/



http://www.datapointed.net/media/2011/03/tax_burden.jpg



Now, according to the link here, the GNP is $15 trillion.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=what+is+the+us+gross+domestic+product

We are currently taking into the federal coffers around 15% of GDP, which should come out to $2.25 trillion. From what I have seen, the tax receipts over time might average around 18%. ( http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receipts ) If we were taking in closer to that average we would have (18/15) x 2.25 = $2.7 trillion. An extra half trillion would bring our deficit back closer back in line...

menmon
09-08-2012, 03:17 PM
Do I read this correctly: You are saying that the rich are now taxed more, and the middle & lower income levels are about the same.

Yet, the rich are still not paying their fair share?

What I'm saying is the high tax rates of the past were avoided by the folks that could and not by the ones that couldn't...pretty much the same as now except the higher marginal rates are much lower.

coachmo
09-08-2012, 05:48 PM
Yet the rich still pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country. Go figure!

caryalsobrook
09-08-2012, 09:03 PM
I don't really want to get involved in the discussions here again, but since you directed this at me, I'll try and give you an answer. Here is a graph I posted here quite a while ago. You have to sit and look it over a bit to grasp what it all means, but it is the clearest representation of what has happened to effective tax rates that I have ever found.

I won't spend time explaining the methodology. If you're interested you can look over the site yourself if you want to try and make a judgement on the veracity of the information. I think reading the information on the page I provided the link to below is worthwhile.

I got the link to the graph here: http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/



http://www.datapointed.net/media/2011/03/tax_burden.jpg



Now, according to the link here, the GNP is $15 trillion.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=what+is+the+us+gross+domestic+product

We are currently taking into the federal coffers around 15% of GDP, which should come out to $2.25 trillion. From what I have seen, the tax receipts over time might average around 18%. ( http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receipts ) If we were taking in closer to that average we would have (18/15) x 2.25 = $2.7 trillion. An extra half trillion would bring our deficit back closer back in line...

Yes, you posted this before. the stated that 4 out of 5 dentists recomended them. I guarantee you that not even 1 out of 10 dentists HAVE EVER EVEN HEARD OF THEM. So much for their veracity.

they do draw pretty modern art though. Actually makes their work good for something.:rolleyes: