Minimum Wage: Part II

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]H factor wrote:
Also I think the growing income inequality right now is a big concern, but I bet we have diametrically opposed reasons for why it is a concern Pitt. [/quote]

The wealth gap between Bill Gates and I is vastly less important than the wealth gap between the equivalent of Bill Gates in 1900 & I in 2014.

And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams.

22

[quote]H factor wrote:

I can agree with this, but now we enter even more subjective territory. What type of shelter? What type of food? What type of necessities? And who’s “job” is it to provide this? [/quote]

It is absolutely no one’s job to provide any of it. It is the person who wants it job to EARN it.

Sorry to break the bad news to the leftists, but you can’t violate the laws of nature, and expect to have zero consequence.

23

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

FWIW I don’t think a hedge fund manager should get capital gains treatment if his income is in fact salary. [/quote]

I can argue it both ways, effectively. In fact, I do, often with my bosses.

In the end, focusing on carry is like fishing in a mud puddle on the shore of Lake Michigan, or complaining about one rotten apple when the entire grove is infected with fungus. (To use a negative analogy for the leftists.)[/quote]

I’d be interested to hear the argument for capital gains treatment?

It seems to me hedge fund managers should get the same treatment any fee based or commission based person does.

I mean I get that their income is tied to the performance of their fund, but so is a car salesman’s.

24

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I can agree with this, but now we enter even more subjective territory. What type of shelter? What type of food? What type of necessities? And who’s “job” is it to provide this? [/quote]

It is absolutely no one’s job to provide any of it. It is the person who wants it job to EARN it.

Sorry to break the bad news to the leftists, but you can’t violate the laws of nature, and expect to have zero consequence. [/quote]

Actually I don’t care if other people try and provide it for others. I just don’t know why everyone must be dragged along. I’m not exactly swimming in money (we are comfortable) and my fiance and I are both working our ass off. Now we need to work more to provide for others? Why? Who says? And who gets to pick those subjective things anyways? Where does that power originate?

25

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Also I think the growing income inequality right now is a big concern, but I bet we have diametrically opposed reasons for why it is a concern Pitt. [/quote]

The wealth gap between Bill Gates and I is vastly less important than the wealth gap between the equivalent of Bill Gates in 1900 & I in 2014.

And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

Agreed. My main reason (and this is why I said diametrically opposed to Pitt’s view) for fearing income gaps is because of the solutions I think the masses will eventually demand to shrink that.

Income inequality is a concern for me because I think eventually the public is going to demand fixes. And they will want those fixes to come from the government. And that will be more control. And ironically asking a big reason why we have so much income disparity to fix a problem they partially created.

Doesn’t sound smart to me.

26

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

FWIW I don’t think a hedge fund manager should get capital gains treatment if his income is in fact salary. [/quote]

I can argue it both ways, effectively. In fact, I do, often with my bosses.

In the end, focusing on carry is like fishing in a mud puddle on the shore of Lake Michigan, or complaining about one rotten apple when the entire grove is infected with fungus. (To use a negative analogy for the leftists.)[/quote]

Although I am one that would argue all income should be in the same catagory; your analogy is an excellent example of the ‘condition’ that effects idealogs from both sides.

27

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

As one of the few members old enough to straddle the advances made in the the second half of the last century you are certainly correct where material/creature comfort/entertainment are concerned. The effect these things have on ‘quality of life’ is relative.

28

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

As one of the few members old enough to straddle the advances made in the the second half of the last century you are certainly correct where material/creature comfort/entertainment are concerned. The effect these things have on ‘quality of life’ is relative. [/quote]

I look at it like this:

When my daughter got a virus and was vomiting every 25-30mins we took her to the hospital. They gave her a magic pill that stopped the vomiting so we could get fluids in her so she wasn’t dehydrated. The chances of her dying from this virus were very, very slim.

100 years ago, or if I lived in other countries in the world, the chances of her dying from this virus grow exponentially.

That is quality of life improvement.

In 1900 how a rich man took care of their poop, and how a poor man took care of their poop were significantly different. Today, rich or poor, in America, you shit in water cleaner than the rich man’s in 1900.

In 1990 a desktop computer less powerful than a smart phone was a 4 figure purchase, and poor people didn’t have them. In 2014 a smart phone significantly more powerful than that computer is a couple hundred dollars, and our government gives out slightly less powerful phones for “free”.

Our quality of life is vastly better, IMO. We’re (American’s) just really damn spoiled and don’t even see how good we have it, even poor Americans. We are like New England sports fans.

29

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Also I think the growing income inequality right now is a big concern, but I bet we have diametrically opposed reasons for why it is a concern Pitt. [/quote]

The wealth gap between Bill Gates and I is vastly less important than the wealth gap between the equivalent of Bill Gates in 1900 & I in 2014.

And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

Agreed. My main reason (and this is why I said diametrically opposed to Pitt’s view) for fearing income gaps is because of the solutions I think the masses will eventually demand to shrink that.

Income inequality is a concern for me because I think eventually the public is going to demand fixes. And they will want those fixes to come from the government. And that will be more control. And ironically asking a big reason why we have so much income disparity to fix a problem they partially created.

Doesn’t sound smart to me. [/quote]

Fair enough. I agree with you.

It is frightening.

30

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

As one of the few members old enough to straddle the advances made in the the second half of the last century you are certainly correct where material/creature comfort/entertainment are concerned. The effect these things have on ‘quality of life’ is relative. [/quote]

I look at it like this:

When my daughter got a virus and was vomiting every 25-30mins we took her to the hospital. They gave her a magic pill that stopped the vomiting so we could get fluids in her so she wasn’t dehydrated. The chances of her dying from this virus were very, very slim.

100 years ago, or if I lived in other countries in the world, the chances of her dying from this virus grow exponentially.

That is quality of life improvement.

In 1900 how a rich man took care of their poop, and how a poor man took care of their poop were significantly different. Today, rich or poor, in America, you shit in water cleaner than the rich man’s in 1900.

In 1990 a desktop computer less powerful than a smart phone was a 4 figure purchase, and poor people didn’t have them. In 2014 a smart phone significantly more powerful than that computer is a couple hundred dollars, and our government gives out slightly less powerful phones for “free”.

Our quality of life is vastly better, IMO. We’re (American’s) just really damn spoiled and don’t even see how good we have it, even poor Americans. We are like New England sports fans. [/quote]

No doubt that advances in medicine and public health have had a great impact on quality of life (I considered this as I typed my reply). You specifically used the word ‘properous’ which I have always associated directly with material wealth.

31

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’d be interested to hear the argument for capital gains treatment?

[/quote]

Okay, this will take a few posts and some back and forth though.

First off, rules are you argue for OI treatment, I argue for current treatment. ANd because you want to see the change, you need to justify the change from current treatment first? This fair?

so:

Why do you think cap gains should have their income character changed?

32

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You specifically used the word ‘properous’ which I have always associated directly with material wealth.
[/quote]

I always did too. Until I started working with filthy rich people…

I’ve have now met a lot more miserable rich people than truly miserable poor people. Stresses are different, and problems different, but…

Major part of the problem is a lot of people we think are rich, are full of shit.

33

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Also I think the growing income inequality right now is a big concern, but I bet we have diametrically opposed reasons for why it is a concern Pitt. [/quote]

The wealth gap between Bill Gates and I is vastly less important than the wealth gap between the equivalent of Bill Gates in 1900 & I in 2014.

And the truth of the matter is even the poorest in America today, live a much more prosperous life than even some of the most outrageously wealthy of even 100 years ago. Technology has enriched us as a people beyond our wildest dreams. [/quote]

Agreed. My main reason (and this is why I said diametrically opposed to Pitt’s view) for fearing income gaps is because of the solutions I think the masses will eventually demand to shrink that.

Income inequality is a concern for me because I think eventually the public is going to demand fixes. And they will want those fixes to come from the government. And that will be more control. And ironically asking a big reason why we have so much income disparity to fix a problem they partially created.

Doesn’t sound smart to me. [/quote]

Fair enough. I agree with you.

It is frightening. [/quote]

If/when are economy begins creating good jobs again; concerns over ‘income equality’ will fade into the background; I’ve been here before.

34

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’d be interested to hear the argument for capital gains treatment?

[/quote]

Okay, this will take a few posts and some back and forth though.

First off, rules are you argue for OI treatment, I argue for current treatment. ANd because you want to see the change, you need to justify the change from current treatment first? This fair?

so:

Why do you think cap gains should have their income character changed?[/quote]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating that cap gains should have their income character changed. I think the cap gains tax is a good thing and would even argue for a lower rate.

What I’m saying, based solely off Pitts article, is that Hedge Fund Managers (assuming the article is accurate I didn’t check into it) are taxed at cap gains rates essentially due to the nature of their business, which I don’t agree with. Their income should be ordinary, imo.

Edit:

Lol, I misunderstood your post. Let me try again.

I would say the Hedge Fund Manager is earning a living via ordinary income. It is not their money being invested in the fund they manage (any money they do invest in the fund they manage should be cap gains). Yes, their income is tied to the performance of the fund they manage, but other jobs are also tied to their performance that do not get cap gains treatment. Commission based salaries are an example. If the local jeep dealer is a poor sales manager he doesn’t make commission, but if he manages his sales well he can make a lot off commissions, his performance in his field directly correlates to his income yet he is taxed at ordinary rates.

35

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You specifically used the word ‘properous’ which I have always associated directly with material wealth.
[/quote]

I always did too. Until I started working with filthy rich people…

I’ve have now met a lot more miserable rich people than truly miserable poor people. Stresses are different, and problems different, but…

Major part of the problem is a lot of people we think are rich, are full of shit. [/quote]

LOL…I know right; it only takes a couple of interactions with some of those people to help a guy appreciate their situation.

36

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
his performance in his field directly correlates to his income yet he is taxed at ordinary rates. [/quote]

Okay, so we have a manager, we’ll call him USM.

USM works for a company, ABC LLC. ABC LLC starts an investment fund. Part of USM’s job is soliciting investors. Let’s say USM is good at his job and get a billion in committed capital. So Fund X is a billion dollar fund, USM is the primary manager of investments.

Fund X is set up as an LP (limited partnership). What do LP’s need? A General Partner(s) and limited partners. What is the difference between the two?

37

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
his performance in his field directly correlates to his income yet he is taxed at ordinary rates. [/quote]

Okay, so we have a manager, we’ll call him USM.

USM works for a company, ABC LLC. ABC LLC starts an investment fund. Part of USM’s job is soliciting investors. Let’s say USM is good at his job and get a billion in committed capital. So Fund X is a billion dollar fund, USM is the primary manager of investments.

Fund X is set up as an LP (limited partnership). What do LP’s need? A General Partner(s) and limited partners. What is the difference between the two?

[/quote]

If I’m understanding your question, it’s my understanding that the General Partners are responsible for the day to day decision making and operations where as the LPs are just investors. That’s overly simplified of course.

Edit:

What is the fee structure of Fund X?

38

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
his performance in his field directly correlates to his income yet he is taxed at ordinary rates. [/quote]

Okay, so we have a manager, we’ll call him USM.

USM works for a company, ABC LLC. ABC LLC starts an investment fund. Part of USM’s job is soliciting investors. Let’s say USM is good at his job and get a billion in committed capital. So Fund X is a billion dollar fund, USM is the primary manager of investments.

Fund X is set up as an LP (limited partnership). What do LP’s need? A General Partner(s) and limited partners. What is the difference between the two?

[/quote]

General partner operates the business and is fully liable for debts. Limited partner is only liable for his investment and does not participate in running the business.

39

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
his performance in his field directly correlates to his income yet he is taxed at ordinary rates. [/quote]

Okay, so we have a manager, we’ll call him USM.

USM works for a company, ABC LLC. ABC LLC starts an investment fund. Part of USM’s job is soliciting investors. Let’s say USM is good at his job and get a billion in committed capital. So Fund X is a billion dollar fund, USM is the primary manager of investments.

Fund X is set up as an LP (limited partnership). What do LP’s need? A General Partner(s) and limited partners. What is the difference between the two?

[/quote]

If I’m understanding your question, it’s my understanding that the General Partners are responsible for the day to day decision making and operations where as the LPs are just investors. That’s overly simplified of course. [/quote]

Correct, however there is one major thing you are leaving out; liability. LP’s are only liable for capital put in (and committed), GP’s have liability for the entire kit and kabootal. Debt of the fund, are debts of the GP.

So what does ACB LLC do? The create another LP called FUND X GP and that new LP becomes the GP of FUND X. The GP of FUND X GP is ABC LLC.

Do you follow the tiered structure? (No a-days there are a boat load of single member LLC’s in there too, but this is the basis of the structure.)

Now, FUND X GP will typically commit 1% to FUND X, but this is worked around in various ways that are more complex than I have time to get into. The investors in FUND X GP are ABC LLC as the GP and the employees of ABC LLC, USM being one of the LP’s. USM will contribute his 5% of the 1% FUND X GP owes FUND X.

DO you follow thus far?

40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
DO you follow thus far?[/quote]

As best I can…