What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

reboot wrote: Very few of them make millions & millions of dollars. The higher up business execs also receive a lot of stock/option for compensation instead of ordinary income. It's a weird system in that people who generate wealth primarily off of their personal talent (the professionals you mentioned that practices or possesses specific expertise) in the field or domain of business (in the case of execs) are actually taxed at quite a high rate. But once you rise above that, things starts to shift the other way.

Equity compensation is taxed as ordinary income. The exception is for a special type of option known as an incentive stock option; those are limited to $100,000 per year and thus are not very popular with the C-level executive crowd, who prefer another zero or two tacked on.

D B, I haven't looked into the Oregon wage increase very much yet. But having a wage increase and also a couple thousand new job (just from what I've read now) sounds like something else is going on. I'll look into it more.

As far as trying to keep US companies in the US and paying more taxes by force, has that ever worked out well? Worst comes to worst, they'll liquidate their assets and set up in another country under a new name. Then you'll have to legislate import tariffs to try and get them. Of course you'd have to get all this legislation through Congress and meanwhile, the reduction in available jobs will make US workers suffer. Not sure force is the best way to attain the goal. Lowering the tax rate and simplifying the tax code would incentivize them to stay.

Rebuilding infrastructure would create job, temporary though they'd be. But taxing offshore wealth would prove very difficult. All 'Widget Corp' has to do is create 'Widget International' in some other country and now getting taxes from them is much harder.

Subsidies to all business should end, not just to the oil and gas industry. But being as how we're running a deficit ever year as it is, how long do you want to keep putting the difference on the national credit card? Renewable Energy is a difficult subject because, it's expensive. A new fuel efficient car might be nice, but when your household bills already put you in the hole deeper every month, it's hard to justify that new car. I have think we need to get deficit neutral and create a plan to deal with the debt before we go spending more money.

Colin ... agreed. A very simple economic axiom = when you raise the cost of something you get less of it. Raise the cost of labor to an employer? You get less labor. Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist, called the minimum wage law "the most anti-black law on the books."

From Milton Friedman:

"The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” [by politicians like President Obama] almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.

Let me give you a very simple example – take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors [like President Obama]– there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors – there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions – the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed.

The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.

Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.

There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members."

Guy Keesee wrote:Todd.... the Democrats.

Cave Rock--closed February 2008. Must have been Obama's fault.
Jeffco Open Space--closed 2016. I guess the lone Democrat on the Board of Commissioners did it.

Re Cave Rock -- from the Alpinist, 3-8-08:

Over ten years of battles and negotiations came to a close on February 28 when US Forest Supervisor Terri Mason signed an order to enforce a permanent climbing ban at Cave Rock on the shore of Lake Tahoe, Nevada. The volcanic rock is home to many steep sport routes mostly in the 5.12-5.13 range.

The dispute started in 1997 with complaints from the local Washoe Native American tribe. The Washoe's complaints sparked controversy because they included an objection to women touching the rock. Access Fund marketing director Robb Shurr explained, "The actual rock is considered holy by the Washoe tribe. They originally wanted to ban women entirely from the area, but the Forest Service would obviously not allow it."

There also were protests to the amount of trash left around, the bolting of the rock and the heavily chalked holds that supposedly altered the natural state of the rock. These complaints had more traction, and the Forest Service enacted a climbing ban that was upheld in court in 2003.

In 2005, members of the Access Fund decided to appeal the decision on the basis that the climbing ban was unconstitutional. "The closure was first based on a cultural belief which is why it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals," Shurr said, "but the judge upheld the closure on the grounds that Cave Rock has historical significance."

Hiking, fishing and picnicking are still allowed on and around the paved floor of Cave Rock. U.S. Highway 50 runs through a dynamited tunnel a few feet away from the climbing area.

As of now the bolts remain unchopped, and there are no formal plans to remove them. Angry climbers via internet forums vow to increase their climbing activity in protest to the ban despite the consequences. However, Shurr and the Access Fund urge climbers to heed the closure because "it is in our long term interests that climbers be agreeable and respectful."

PRRose wrote: Equity compensation is taxed as ordinary income. The exception is for a special type of option known as an incentive stock option; those are limited to $100,000 per year and thus are not very popular with the C-level executive crowd, who prefer another zero or two tacked on.

You are right, these are primarily loopholes for the companies issuing them than the ones getting paid. It becomes a bit murkier when the ones getting paid essentially run the company. Put it this way, companies wouldn't be able to afford paying that much in options if they didn't get the tax break. What's the difference between a nominally smaller pay w/ a lower tax rate vs a nominally higher pay w/ a higher tax rate?

Bill Kirby wrote:That magical source is huge tax increases on households making above $250,000. Look it up. Scary stuff if you're making that type of coin.

Not just them. I didn't see the 6% tax accounted at all, and of course they didn't even ask for the data on how to account for capitol gains increases (huge amount) or eliminating deductions "for the rich"? You mean like your home mortgage? None of this was accounted for.

As always with political news, lie ont he front page, print the correction on the back 2 weeks later (AKA after the election).

"We'll just have to pass this bill to see what's in it."

D B wrote: Dude... bernietax.com is only showing what you will save, as an average person, based on the 2.2% tax and healthcare savings. It's not meant to calculate the entire cost of the program. And you ignored my post and repeated your false $1.5k number. I already showed you that they're planning on paying slightly more per person (~$4.3k) than most other countries. What are you still skeptical about? Why do you think other countries can do it, but we can't?

I'm skeptical about running a front page that shows "You will save _____" without even attempting to account for the actual charges, such as eliminated deductions, estate taxes, the 6% employer paid tax (that will come out of next year's raise you know... or maybe several).

I KNOW that the program isn't going to cost that, but it is the appearance that I believe they are trying to give.

As for "my false number" Yeah, I called it false. We agree on that much.

Tony B wrote: Not just them. I didn't see the 6% tax accounted at all, and of course they didn't even ask for the data on how to account for capitol gains increases (huge amount) or eliminating deductions "for the rich"? You mean like your home mortgage? None of this was accounted for. As always with political news, lie ont he front page, print the correction on the back 2 weeks later (AKA after the election). "We'll just have to pass this bill to see what's in it."

Here are the details:

berniesanders.com/issues/me…

And if you really want to dig in, go for it:

sanders.senate.gov/download…

D B wrote:Marginal in that you only pay an extra 4% for income over 250k. If you make enough to where that adds up to $10k, I have a hard time feeling sorry :)

How the heck do you know what he has in tax shelters that will be eliminated or how much of his income is capitol gains, in order to offer him that advice?

D B wrote: Here are the details: berniesanders.com/issues/me… And if you really want to dig in, go for it: sanders.senate.gov/download…

Exactly my point. So the "front page" says you pay no premium but the 2% tax and all that savings comes to you. COMPLETELY ignores the 6% employer tax as if they will just fork that over and not take it out of your benefits since they now pay it to the feds.

But hey, deception is the key when you are trying to oversell something.
And that's what I have a problem with. The deceptive front page.
Repaint that car that was in a flood or fire and sell it as new. What's the harm, it's just a little trickery to make it look better than it is. Hell, double the price and then have a "50% off sale."
What's the harm in a little deception?

Trump disgusts me for the same reasons and many more. An informed public would be nice. Too bad people WANT to believe the lies and do for little other reason, I guess.

A good history on bolting bans in the US

climbing.com/people/fixed-a…

Tony: employers are projected to save overall as well, even with the 6% tax. He's said this many times and it's probably in that link somewhere.

If this gets passed, your employer should be able to pay you more. If they subtract that 6% from your salary, that's a good sign you should look for a new job.

From UnBiased America
The problem with using legislation to mandate artificially higher wages and benefits is that companies can move to a location with less costly labor. This is part of the reason economists estimate a loss of millions of jobs if the minimum wage is increased to $15/hr. And it's also part of the reason Bernie Sanders (and other socialists throughout history) have been advocates of closed borders. They don't want cheap labor coming into the country, and they don't want companies leaving and taking jobs with them. Mobility is the death of socialism.

SOURCES: econweb.tamu.edu/jmeer/Meer…
cbo.gov/sites/default/files…
nber.org/papers/w20724
americanactionforum.org/upl…
NOTE: Job loss figures calculated by Ben Gitis and Douglas Holtz-Eakin using the methodology of the CBO, Meer, and Clemens.

I once knew a girl from East German. She, her friends, her family, and her families friends were all convinced that when the wallcame down it was because the West Germans need the East to bail them out financially.... by buying all their houses!

Very funny, but also amazingly delusional. Now I don't know if East German was considered Socialist or Communist (though Socialist certainly fits better. But when you have pairs of border guards ordered to shoot anyone trying to LEAVE the country, you know it's pretty bad.

D B wrote: If this gets passed, your employer should be able to pay you more.

I really appreciate the civil disagreement. I am serious about that. I take you for genuine and well intended, as well as patient and pretty fair. Not that I agree with you, but I can certainly appreciate your disagreement.
But...
politifact.com/truth-o-mete…

"Missing details:
It’s unclear whether Sanders would eliminate deductibles and co-pays. These costs currently exist under Medicare, and his 2013 bill makes no mention of changing the system. But the breakdown from his campaign lists both as $0.
The 6.7 percent payroll tax should also be counted as a worker cost, since it most likely would come out of wages rather than employers’ pockets, experts said. That’s because the sticker price of employer-based insurance isn’t what employers are actually spending.
Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks."
Which is what I've been saying. I'm pretty sure of that.

The opinion you express I've heard as a talking point, but never from an economist. And again, the site that generates the numbers on what is at most 1/4 of the income tax (paid by any party) state the "savings" with no disclaimor on any of that. So I rate it as "mostly false"

Again, turning to Politifact, as linked above:
"With Sanders’ proposed taxes, costs would need to be trimmed by roughly 42 to 47 percent — a tall order when "the most generous estimates of how much you could cut cost are on the order of 20 percent," said Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. "And there are a lot of people who don’t believe those numbers are possible," she said. "Single-payer saves money, but it doesn’t save all the money in the system."
(To note: 'Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.)

D B wrote: If they subtract that 6% from your salary, that's a good sign you should look for a new job.

Or for a new presidential candidate.

I'm all for a few states doing this and showing me how well it works prior to going federal and irreversible. Romney care sure isn't too well loved.

"I like my plan, so I'll keep my plan..."
Which reminds me that I already lost the plan I liked and the cost increased besides. But I still like what I have now more than I'd like Medicare or hthe VA, which are the models for what he's proposing.

Here is the problem regarding wages: not everyone's skills are worth $15/hour.

This is a serious and difficult problem, but it doesn't make it any less true. Whether you are pro or con raising the min wage, you must acknowledge that you cannot mandate a 100% increase in the min wage without consequences.

Any honest conversation must begin with recognizing that there are necessarily trade-offs.

Mathias wrote:As far as trying to keep US companies in the US and paying more taxes by force, has that ever worked out well? Worst comes to worst, they'll liquidate their assets and set up in another country under a new name. Then you'll have to legislate import tariffs to try and get them. Of course you'd have to get all this legislation through Congress and meanwhile, the reduction in available jobs will make US workers suffer.

I agree that the corporate tax rate should not be as high as it is. However, completely open trade borders means we're competing with slave labor and <$1 wages. Even if the tax rate were 0%, jobs would still be outsourced. So do we subsidize them to get them to stay, tax imports, or require them to use US labor? I'm for a combination of the last two.

feelthebern.org/bernie-sand….

Mathias wrote: Rebuilding infrastructure would create job, temporary though they'd be.

Some would be temporary, but continuing maintenance is part of the plan, and something we have neglected.

Mathias wrote:But taxing offshore wealth would prove very difficult. All 'Widget Corp' has to do is create 'Widget International' in some other country and now getting taxes from them is much harder..

I'm not sure it's that simple.

feelthebern.org/bernie-sand…

Mathias wrote:Subsidies to all business should end, not just to the oil and gas industry. But being as how we're running a deficit ever year as it is, how long do you want to keep putting the difference on the national credit card? Renewable Energy is a difficult subject because, it's expensive. A new fuel efficient car might be nice, but when your household bills already put you in the hole deeper every month, it's hard to justify that new car. I have think we need to get deficit neutral and create a plan to deal with the debt before we go spending more money.

Well Sanders' proposals all have payment plans. So he's not adding to the debt, presumably (or the rate of change). And I don't think renewable energy is an area we should cut. It's an important investment and something we need to start taking seriously.

Eric G. wrote:Here is the problem regarding wages: not everyone's skills are worth $15/hour.

True, but if the government has to provide earned income credit, discounted/free health care & other forms of welfare to raise the effective wage of a significant portion of population to be livable, wouldn't it be better for the businesses utilizing these cheap labor to pay for them directly?

The problem has always been that poor individual welfare has a cost on the collective. So what do you do? Let the poor & sick just die? Even if one is heartless enough for that, the more likely scenario is they are not going to play by the rules & exact chaos on the society.

reboot wrote: True, but if the government has to provide earned income credit, discounted/free health care & other forms of welfare to raise the effective wage of a significant portion of population to be livable, wouldn't it be better for the businesses utilizing these cheap labor to pay for them directly?

Well, if that were the actual dilemma,yes. But the actual fact is that they will probably not pay them at all. Is the government subsidizing labor, or are companies subsidizing welfare? In effect, it is actually both. IT depends on what you think would happen if Min wage goes to $15. Who will pay? That's the default.

As a thought experiment, think of it this way: If we can double the Min wage to $15 and it has no effect, or only positive effects as some claim, then why not just make it $30 and pay everyone more than just a 'living wage?' Why not make them all solidly middle class?

The question is rhetorical, of course, and we all know the answer, I suspect. There is a point at which the cost is more than the market will tolerate. Where is that?

Tony B wrote: Well, if that were the actual dilemma,yes. But the actual fact is that they will probably not pay them at all.

Then they (the businesses) probably shouldn't exist at all, philosophically speaking? We are speaking against welfare to individuals, but isn't it also a form of corporate welfare as it exists today? I'm not arguing for raising or lowering the current minimum wage per se, but that there is a good reason for the existence of a minimum wage.

Not all companies/economic activities provide a net social gain, even if they produce a net profit under current laws.