dc_dux

The last 40 years, since the Great Society programs, demonstrated to me that the emergence of a growing black middle class was, in large part, a product of those programs.

BTW, blacks are also twice as likely as whites to work in government jobs...for city, state, or federal government.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Public libraries are not a core government function. If you want core, I'll be glad to discuss the military and schools. I just figured we were discussing less core programs.

Some people born into extreme poverty have the intellect or opportunity to pull themselves from said poverty, but what about people who can't? You're aware that there are plenty of very hard working people who never make more than $13,000 a year.

dc_dux

loquitor...arent you also playing bait and switch?

Why not respond to my post:

A job with no health insurance wont help with a serious illness of a child....a minimum wage job wont put food on the table.....

Or someone who is living from paycheck to paycheck and recently let go because of downsizing and suddenly finds himself between jobs....how does he pay next month's rent w/o unemployment comp?

I really am trying to understand the compassionate libertarian position that minimizes the need for a government social safety net.

add:
It is not just social safety net programs for minorities (those subject to years/decades of discrimination) or poor/working class white families.

Forty years ago (your time frame), more than half the seniors in the country had no health insurance. That crazy Great Society government social program, Medicare, with all its faults, has made a huge difference in the quality of life for seniors.

Do you think "market forces" would provide affordable health care to seniors?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I am confused by your response. Perhaps, if you were more specific I would understand. First, are you questioning the fact that there is no correlation between high marginal tax rates and taxes collected as a percent of GDP? That was the point of the Hauser's graphic. Some people think high marginal tax rates are justifiable because of increased tax revenues. Hauser's graphic suggests that GDP growth leads to higher tax revenues. Some people justify their interest in rolling back the Bush tax cuts because they think that when Bush lowered high marginal tax rates on the "rich" that it adversely affected taxes collected and GDP (or the strength of the economy). Perhaps there are good reasons to support the roll-back of Bush's tax cuts, but perhaps this common reason given is not a good reason.

I think there is evidence that suggests that wealthy people, i.e. Warren Buffet can amass big increases in net worth, while not being impacted by marginal tax rates. Are you questioning this evidence?

I looked at their posts and the links, and found nothing that countered the conclusions I made relative to Hauser's data. That is why I asked you to help me see it.


My understanding of "supply-side" seems different from yours. In my view there is clearly a "suppl-side" sweet spot when it comes to tax policy. There is a range where it has a big impact and a range where it would have no impact.

Again, I ask what would your behavior be under a 100% marginal tax rate compared to a 10% marginal tax rate. If your employer offered you overtime at 1.5 times your normal salary, but after taxes your net take home from that effort was $0, what would you do? what would you do if it were 90%. If we lived in a situation where productive people face 100% marginal rate wouldn't production reach a theoretical peak much sooner at a 100% marginal tax rate situation compared to a 10% rate? Would that be good or bad for GDP? Then if taxes collected as a percentage of GDP always averaged about 20%, would that be good or bad for tax revenues?

You can certainly help me understand your objections to Hauser and to my views regarding supply side, or you can repeat how I lack objectivity, logic, reason, or whatever you think about me personally. Your choice, just keep in mind, I don't care what you think about me, I am interested in the argument.

Also, it was the author of the WSJ editorial who introduced "Hauser's Law", I think it is the author who wants to elevate Hauser's graphic. I don't see that as the issue. To me the point is the lack of correlation between marginal tax rates and taxes collected as a percentage of GDP.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

loquitur

Wrong. The growth of the black middle class was as a result of the civil rights laws, which removed to a large degree artificial obstacles to individual rights and pursuit of self-improvement for people of disfavored groups. That's not a social program. It didn't GIVE anyone anything, it just removed an artificial and unjustified disability so that they could EARN on their own on the same terms as anyone else. People in the black middle class didn't get there because of AFDC.

As for why blacks are more likely to work in govt jobs, I would guess there are a lot of interesting sociological explanations for it. But that doesn't make govt employment into a social program - or are you suggesting that govt work isn't real work, or that black civil servants somehow aren't earning their pay?

The lesson of the last 40 years that I'm talking about is the huge increase of crime and virtual destruction of the intact urban black family as a result of disincentivizing fatherhood (as distinct from breeding and leaving) and work. The link of the Great Society programs with the social dysfunction of the 70s and 80s was pretty well documented. They were enacted with the best of intentions (to use your word, "compassion"), and with wonderful logic behind them - and ended in disaster. I wrote about it here; go have a read.

dc_dux

The black middle class grew as a result of both the civil rights laws and social safety net programs.

Children who do not go to school hungry (through food stamp/nutrition programs) or have access to early leaning programs (like Head Start) or a better living environment (through housing assistance programs) are more likely to learn and succeed.

Sgle mothers who are given assistance (through AFDC/TANF) while they (and many young unemployed black males) learn a skill (through CETA and other federal job training programs) are far more likely to succeed.

Medicaid had a dramatic impact on the health of millions of children and families living in poverty. Medicare has significantly improved the quality of life for millions of seniors.

I raised the issue of blacks in goverment jobs because you suggessted that government work wasnt real work:

Governments don't create jobs. Not real ones, anyway....(#77)

It is a matter of perspective...you appear to focus on the negative outcomes of the Great Society programs...I acknowledged that there were abuses and unintended consquences...however, those who benefited far outweigh those negative outcomes.

I have read many analyses of the social progams and their impacts on the poor, working class, and seniors... and based on what I read here, I think you minimize the substantial positive benefits of those programs.

I would encourge you to read some of the work of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (particularly Eleanor Holmes Norton, the current congresswoman for DC.) and the Urban and Brooking Institutes.

And I will read your analysis when I have time.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

loquitur

Not if the family structure has been gutted by dependency. There are so many studies on this that I could use then as kindling and have plenty left over. Plenty of poor people succeed in school without govt help, starting with my own parents. The key wasn't that the govt was giving them stuff - the key was that they had intact and supportive family. (Just so you understand, I'm not advocating letting people starve, but there's a difference between supporting charity and creating an entrenched bureaucracy with an interest in its own perpetuation.)

Well, you don't know what the health outcomes would be without Medicare/aid. What I can tell you for certain is that the availability of free govt money for health care has thrown the pricing structure of health care so far out of whack that we now have a crisis. Subsidies as an economic matter will almost always result in higher prices. And Medicaid is the program that ate state govt, and is a regular generator of extreme corruption and fraud. If we got the govt out of the health care business I can guarantee you that prices would go down and access would be pretty much unaffected (in fact, I think we should make noncatastrophic health insurance illegal, so that you pay for your own treatment. That's guaranteed to keep prices low. But that's a post for another day.) I can also tell you that I have a lot of friends who are doctors, and to a wo/man, they all say that they could drop prices significantly and work fewer hours and still make the same living if they didn't have the mountains of paperwork and regulations to deal with. So who really benefits from the programs? Answer: bureaucrats and public sector unions - the kinds of people who provide political support for legislators who appropriate tax money.

OK, touche, you picked up on some infelicitous wording from me. Look, working in an office is honorable work, whether for the govt or anyone else. So yes, govt jobs are real jobs in the sense that people work and do stuff and earn money for it. But let's not pretend that govt jobs are economically productive or creative the way private sector jobs are. They don't create wealth, they just shuffle it around. I'm not arguing against shuffling it around here - there is a place for some amount of shuffling, that's what we have govt for - but govt jobs don't create wealth or new economic opportunities. They are at best symbiotic to the economy.

Depends what you're measuring, for what purpose and over what time frame. I think it's fairly demonstrable that govt giving stuff away has almost always made problems worse by making them economically feasible - if the govt subsidizes something, it is sure to get more of it. You can't outthink the law of unintended consequences. That's what my post that I linked to above is about.

I think you are falling into a fallacy of comparing programs temporally instead of as against alternative scenarios. As I said before, the best social program for kids is an intact family and the best social program for adults is a job. Creating new bureaucracies is not a recipe for benefitting anyone except public sector union bosses. There are very few people (mainly the handicapped) for whom the only alternative to govt support is misery.

Ther'es lots more I can write but I think that's enough for now. Back to work.

dc_dux

loquitor...you make it sound so simple.....the best social program is creating a job for every adult.

Who could argue with that?

BUT....When has this country, through "market forces", ever created a job (that pay a livable wage) for every adult?

Thats why you are a libertarian and I am a liberal.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

loquitur

Um, how about the last 15 years, when we have had unemployment at or below 5%? If you look at Keynesian economics, they always assumed full employment at 94% of the work force. We have been above that pretty consistently the past 15 years.

dc_dux

How many of those jobs paid below a livable wage?

I guess I should be thankful that a majority of Americans understand the need for (and support) government safety nets for those most in need.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

What is a "livable wage"?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

loquitor..I just dont buy the libertarian argument....

If left to "market forces", every American will have a job that pays a decent, livable wage....and every family is stable with two parents.

And if anyone or any family is still without adequate food, shelter, health insurance, basic job skills, etc., its because those pesky government social programs are responsible for driving up the cost of such basic necessities...and not part of the solution.

Sorry guys...the discussion ends here for me.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Libertarianism has been at the root of every thriving society. Excessive centralized control has been at the root of every thriving society that has materially declined.

No need to apologize for not being able to support the opposing view. We understand.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....libertarianism has never worked anywhere..anytime in history...without having a large, disenfranchised and disregarded lower class living on the edge of society and without basic necessities or living at the mercy of the "monied" class.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

loquitur

no, dc_dux, it's the left-wing caricature of libertarianism has never existed. But the libertarian impulse -- the idea that people do best when left alone to follow their own muse or dreams -- is PRECISELY what has led to most human progress. There has been more relief of poverty due to libertarianism and the corollary economic system (capitalism) than by ANY OTHER SYSTEM EVER INVENTED. You and I are having this conversation because of capitalism. If we had to depend on socialism for computer innovation, we'd still be using pneumatic tubes.

dc_dux, your complaint is that the benefits of capitalism don't distribute evenly, and indeed they don't. I'd rather have everyone decently housed and fed, even if some others lived in luxury, than have everyone be equal and miserable. Wouldn't you?

aceventura3

I thought you were done.

Just to be clear here is a definition of the concept:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism

If we look at the historic basis of great societies and cultures at the basis there were the above concepts. You think this is incorrect?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Low income. Poor education. Poor housing. Poor health. All caused by capitalism, all are the genesis of the cycle of poverty.

I know it's frustrating, but you have to admit that without a larger umbrella of control some people will be taken advantage of and will be left behind. Capitalism, unchecked, leads to corporatocracy, which is a form of economic fascism.
That's a false choice.

dc_dux

ok, ace....you want to play semantics.

No "free market" concept, as loquitor suggested, has ever worked anywhere..anytime in history...without having a large, disenfranchised and disregarded lower class living on the edge of society and without basic necessities or living at the mercy of, or exploited by, the "monied" class.

will, of course its a false choice.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Semantics is definitely the problem. If I am responsible for myself with freedom and everyone else is to, who is subjecting anyone to anything? No one.

After the formation of a formal government structure that restricts freedoms, do you get what you reference. The more restrictive the government control, the more forced impoverish do you get.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Restricting freedoms is not an absolute term. There are billions of shades of gray. Being in a society restricts freedom. Even in anarchy, there are some freedoms that you must give up.

As for:
It's a parabola, actually. The best place to be, for the common man, is having some governmental control and some liberty. Complete liberty means we're at the mercy of those who have more money, complete government means we're at the mercy of those in government.

loquitur

Precapitalist societies were not bastions of fine education, housing and health, Will. Capitalism has raised the floor and expectations in each of those categories. When we say now that someone has poor housing it's a <i>relative</i> term. They're not in caves, they're not in corrugated shacks - they're in what was 150 years ago luxury housing (at least in NY that's the case).

False. Concentration of power in the govt leads to fascism. Departure from markets (by seeking govt favor) increases govt power and could lead to fascism. Regulation leads to concentration of economic power because it raises barriers to entry. Govt tends to try to increase its own power, and that's why corps end up lobbying and making contributions - it's protection money. Remember, it's the govt that has the guns.

Oh yeah? Then why was the USSR such a marvelous economic engine if that's the case? The US has the richest poor people in the recorded history of mankind. Poverty level today exceeds in living standard what middle class people had in 1900. The reason for that is capitalism.

If you would look at how well off people are rather than fetishizing economic equality you'd understand that the greatest emancipator from misery in history is capitalism.

aceventura3

My comment was in the context of has been at the root of great societies and what has been at the root of those societies failing. Nothing more. I think if we understand what makes societies thrive and what makes them die we would then can have a better understanding of finding balance. I fundamentally agree that being at either extreme would not work in a complex society.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Finland's public schools are by far the best in the world, better than the US's private schools. Health? Well we've covered that ad nauseum, but here you go again: France is the best in the world and they pay less per capita in taxes on healthcare than we pay per capita in healthcare insurance. And they have socialized healthcare. As for housing, have you been watching our private housing market lately? Had I not gotten out years ago, I'd be in serious financial trouble.


FALSE! Well, actually it's partially true. Actually it's half of what I said. Did you read what I wrote in my next post?
Wait, so you think that governments are capable of concentrating economic power, but corporations aren't? The government has the guns, and the market has the money. Both are dangerous.
It's simple economics, actually. When a country enters a recession, the ability to invest in new resources becomes scarce, so those resources compound while the market begins to rebuild. What we saw during and after World War II was that kind of recovery. It's one of those interesting natural phenomena in economics. The recovery from a recession can often lead to very healthy economic growth, as it did in the US. It has nothing to do with the free market, as more socialist countries like the UK and Japan also saw great economic growth after the war and reconstruction.
I only fetishize women, thank you very much.

Oh.
Sweet.

loquitur

will, your'e avoiding the question. What noncapitalist society has produced the good that capitalist society has? France and Finland aren't socialist economies, they're regulated capitalistic ones. France's experiment with socialism - nationalized industry and such - under Mitterand was a disaster. You can look it up. Nokia makes profits, correct? Renault? Sanofi Aventis? The corner stores in Paris and Helsinki are privately owned and operated, subject to tax and regulation, right? they're not owned by, operated by or otherwise controlled by govt, right? So they're not socialist countries. They have socialistic aspects, but the money to pay for that was generated by private enterprise.

Economic growth is what has raised the floor of poverty, Will. Not shuffling assets around, which is all socialism ever has done or can do. And you don't get economic growth in any appreciable degree without profits.

That stuff you posted about the UK and Japan was nonsensical. The UK was totally sclerotic as a result of socialism until Thatcher broke the system at the end of the 1970s. And Japan was bombed back to the stone age in WW2 - it had no place to go but up. But once it recovered, the socialism caught up with it and it has been in recession for what, 15 years now? Geez Louise, Will, don't just make stuff up. "Simple economics"? I'd suggest you go read Adam Smith if you want simple economics. Supply and demand still rule.

Willravel

They're more socialist than we are, by quite a bit, which supports my suggestion that the best place to be is partly capitalist and partially socialist.

A strictly socialist society is just as doomed as a strictly libertarian society, at least with the population sizes in question.
I'm not saying it doesn't work when you're in the shitter, but libertarian, free market capitalism needs balance when you're economy is of a certain size or larger, otherwise you start leaning towards a corporatocracy. When the government can't regulate corporations, they tend to do whatever they want. How long did big tobacco refuse to admit their product was dangerous after they figured it out? For that matter, how often does even a crappy and largely ineffective government agency like the FDA save lives?
How about this:
- Les Trente Glorieuses. In the years after WWII, France saw economic growth and prosperity. This growth coincided with incredible and unprecedented establishment of worker's rights and unions, which are more socialist.

loquitur

France was emerging from a disastrous war and was the beneficiary of the Marshall Plan, Will.

And I must have missed Sarkozy's promise when elected to increase the amount of socialism in France.

roachboy

loquitor--i am resisting this time the temptation to start loading alot of information. i am not going to go after the myriad ways in which you are wrong about democratic socialism. it's not fun, it's not interesting.


what's perhaps more interesting is that you can't talk coherently about poverty in terms of income levels alone--try factoring in mortality rates--try reading some amartya sen. it'll be good for your head. whether this is a topic for here or another thread sometime is up to you.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

You mean like the US was emerging from a disastrous depression?
So you're saying you think France is at the same level of capitalism as the US? Or more, even?

aceventura3

Recently Obama elaborated on his tax plans. Shortly thereafter, I started to see all kinds of articles and advice on how his tax proposals will affect people and of course strategies on minimizing the impact. Obama is going to raise marginal income tax rates and capital gains tax rates (on the "rich" of course), first the most obvious strategy is for the "rich" to start moving their money into municipal bonds, which are federal income tax free.

So, a wealthy fixed income investor will move money from taxed instruments to non-taxed instruments. And some people not currently investing in fixed income investment may now find them more attractive. The only potential problem is the ATM tax, which Congress is planning on adjusting.

There usually is not a capital gain on municipal bonds held to maturity or those that are called, so there won't be much of an opportunity for capital gains taxes.

You think that this would be good for municipalities - maybe, maybe not. We are mostly looking at bonds already issued and purchasable on the secondary market. All other things being equal, holders of those bonds today may sell them as demand increases (causing the price to go up and the yield to go down), they may incur some capital gains this year. In the future sellers may actually have some capital losses.

All other things being equal, there will be a shift from corporate bonds. Corporations will have to offer higher yields to compete with tax free bonds. If the cost of corporate capital goes up, there will be less capital investment. With less capital investment over time the economy will be negatively affected.

Oh my, to think that in an effort to soak the "rich", the rich would actually respond to minimize their tax burden. And then there are those pesky unintended consequences.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Here is more evidence that the "rich" respond to tax policy. New York and California, two states with among the highest state tax rates in the nation, are experiencing below average income growth. The two states are facing large budget deficits due to their reliance on increasing taxes and failure to control spending. Now, it is catching up with them.

It seems "rich" people and middle class people are leaving the two states and are going to states like Texas and Florida. These states have no state income tax.



How Not to Balance a Budget - WSJ.com

I wonder what will happen under Obama's tax plan, I think I already know.

Please note:

I apologize for "cherry picking" data supporting "supply side economics" and not showing you what to question.
I apologize for reading the WSJ editorial pages and subjecting TFP'ers to it.
I apologize for being a conservative capitalist pig (without the lipstick).
I apologize for being a cynic.
I apologize for zealous support of Palin.
I apologize for {fill in the blank, based on what offends you most about my posts}

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

asaris

Here's the question: whose income is growing? Is that growth in mean or median income? How about the wage gap? Is it possible there are other factors -- like, what is New York's major industry? And I suspect California might have problems unrelated to the income tax. As long as we're blaming politics, not business, what about California's unwieldy referendum system? The fact that more businesses are moving their headquarters to Texas might mean that Texas is nice for businesses, but doesn't say anything about whether it's good for your average Joe.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

loquitur

well, that's sort of a "duh." Being rich means being mobile - why subject yourself to confiscatory taxation if you don't want to? Mind you, a lot of people love NY and are willing to pay very high taxes to be there, for all sorts of reasons. But they don't have to. There's a reason why NY and CA have net outflows of US citizens (replaced to some degree by immigrants, who are at the bottom - low-taxed, high-benefit-receiving end of the scale), while FL and TX have high inflows.

dc_dux

I still love the logic of ace's latest WSJ editorial:
Cal and NY have high income tax rates and Cal and NY are experiencing people leaving at high rates....so it must the tax rates.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Sometimes the journal isn't all it's cracked up to be.

loquitur

well then, come up with your alternative explanations for the exodus. Calif has the best climate in the country, scenery, and until recently lots of job opportunity. NY has the most interesting and dense concentration of cultural attractions possibly in the world. Why would people leave? Why would employers leave?

aceventura3

Actually, in California in particular, I think the below average increase in wages is due to the change or shift in the distribution of income. I think in California (I lived there for about 11 years) you have a flattening of the normal bell curve when it comes in income. You have more really high income earners but and you have even more really low income earners (in part due to immigration - legal and illegal), however the people in the middle are leaving the state due to a number of factors including taxes. I left the state for a number of reasons including the fact that the cost of doing business was too high for me. I took my small business, my family, sold my California home, let my California employees go, and moved. I am not "rich" and if you multiply "me" by the thousands of others, sooner or later it has an impact. I personally know many other business owners who moved, some to Arizona, some to Nevada, and some to the South East.

Taxes and the cost to do business drives behavior, there are consequences to tax and regulatory policy. I don't see how people argue against that point.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 10 : 50 : 31-----
Like I said - I don't understand why people argue the point that you can tax and regulate the "rich" and it won't have an impact. Obama and his gang think they can raise taxes on the "rich" and the "rich" will just pay the higher taxes. Supply side economics works when lowering excessive tax rates and it also has the opposite affect when increasing tax rates.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 11 : 00 : 37-----
I suggested several times that perhaps people like you and others go out and talk to people. I know why I let California. I know why many other business owners left the state. I currently live in North Carolina, a state that is getting a large number of New York transplants, I know why they leave New York. It is interesting but North Carolina is also starting to get a large number of transplants from Florida, not because of taxes, but because of the hurricane exposure. It may be a few years before the statistics and headlines start to reflect that, but talking to people gives one a heads up. This is one reason why North Carolina real estate has been holding up better than the national averages. I mention this simply to illustrate that Washington does not have all the answers, research (and citations from research) may be yesterday's new, a real people make decisions based on real things that happen - not theoretical stuff taught in grad school.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I'll stick with the findings of a recent study (pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office in which the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

So..that means that from 68 to 78 percent of that lost revenue is not replaced in the best scenario and no lost revenue is replaced under the worst scenario....it is LOST...which explains in large part the huge increases in the national debt under Voodoo Economics I (Reagan) and VE II (Bush)....the two largest increases in the national debt in history!

Ironically, the director of the CBO at the time was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is now a senior economic policy advisor on the McCain campaign.

ace, thanks for the advice

But for the record, I probably speak to more business leaders, local government officials and leaders of community-based organizations in a week than you do in a year.

And I dont call people with whom I disagree either liars or ignorant in any of those conversations.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Is this the same study that excluded the possible impact of economic growth in their analysis?


O.k. - Tell us why they are leaving states like California and New York?
Tell us why some business are moving jobs overseas?
Tell us what business owners with S corps. planning on doing when they are faced with a dramatic increase in social security tax under Obama?

Aagh, more rhetorical questions.

I would not call a person a liar or ignorant in a face to face conversation either. However, if that is what they are that doesn't change the facts. In this case you argue against my positions on supply side economics, the impact of tax and regulatory policy while not really engaging my points other than to say they are wrong. Do you believe that the tax and regulatory climate in California has no impact on middle class people and business owners leaving the state? If you answer that tax and regulatory policy has no impact - what am I to conclude?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Alot of the fat cats in NY are probably leaving and moving south because the golf courses suck in NY!

On a more serious note, in California, particularly southern California, it could very well be due, to some degree, to "white flight" although that would never be given as a reason.

The point is that there are probably myriad socio-economic reasons.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

flstf

I agree that a less corrupt government and lower taxes for all would probably be good for the economy.
I think the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy. I don't understand why it should be called "soaking the rich" when someone proposes to try and close the gap. Even if as you say it is misguided and the wealthy have many resources to avoid and/or pass on these taxes to others. There should be some way to make the tax system more fair to the lower income groups.