How can you not put the *politics tag on?

You don't, however, borrow money on a credit card. You screw yourself and enrich people like Kravis if you do that.

Tax-deductible debt is a fact of life - there are better ways of nailing the ultra-rich for their income than to harp on borrowed funds.

Story in the NY Times about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/business/06equity.html?ref=business

It obscures the REAL problem, being the 15% rather than 35% tax rate which is a huge joke. I can't believe that loophole is still open.

From the NYT article:
"Mr. Greenwald’s movie, the first in a four-part series, is unrelated to the S.E.I.U. and came about, he said, because of what he read about the lavish lifestyles of private equity executives and the debate over the industry’s tax treatment (private equity managers pay capital gains rates of 15 percent on much of their income, instead of the ordinary income tax rate of 35 percent)."

Perhaps the other 3 parts focus on the real issue.

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by Krupo.

Economic gluttony is a criminal act.

oh noes, there are people who be richer/craftier than me! I better cry about it!

The culminating effect of corporations crumbling under the inefficiency and inflexibility of a highly rigid labour market is far more devastating that steady corporate restructuring. It's like comparing sadness to depression. Economic gluttony and materialism is simply a by-product of capitalism, frankly as is tax evasion.

"The culminating effect of corporations crumbling under the inefficiency and inflexibility of a highly rigid labour market is far more devastating that steady corporate restructuring."

I don't follow. Any examples?

Labor is basically the bastard child of all capitalist enterprise.

Labor is the only component that isn't supposed to want a bigger share of the pie.

That seems like an overly Marxist approach, that employers are inevitably screwing over employees by paying them less than the input they add to production. Which is true, although I prefer a unitarist approach, that both employers and employees have a stake or vested value in the success or at least continual survival of a corporation.

My point is layoffs and redundancies are inevitable and are a part of running an effective corporation, one that can compete against highly competitive domestic and particularly international players, all the while attempting to keep up with technological change. So is the liquidation of minor companies that fail to capture a niche market. The combined effect of several corporations crumbling at the same time instead would create ripples through the whole economy through an unexpected fall in consumption levels and consumer/business confidence followed by secondary effects upon interest/exchange rates and inflation levels.

"I prefer a unitarist approach, that both employers and employees have a stake or vested value in the success or at least continual survival of a corporation."

No argument there. Surely you can see the disparity between a worker who might get a 5% raise and feel lucky to keep his job, and an invester or board member who feels cheated if they didn't get a 10% to 20% return on their capital - which is taxed at a lower rate than the workers wages.

"...ripples through the whole economy through an unexpected fall in consumption levels and consumer/business confidence followed by secondary effects upon interest/exchange rates and inflation levels."

Which is another way of saying that the system is inherently flawed and tends to support my claim that economic gluttony is a criminal act.

When you speak of consumption levels and consumers, you are talking about the workers and their ability to buy product.

They can't buy product when they're underpaid or unemployed.

Oh please, no one, and I mean NO ONE here would have a different view on the world if they were on HIS side of the tax brackets.

Power corrupts, and absolute power is money.