"You Can't Soak the Rich" - Dems take note. - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 09-17-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The way to make the tax system fair, is to make sure it is fair. When people try to target on group or another or use tax policy for social engineering you wind up with a convoluted system that will have unintended consequences. I don't think work, savings, and investment should be taxed. Tax consumption. People living like billionaires will be taxed like billionaires, regardless of "tax planning".

Poppinjay · 09-17-2008, 09:04 AM

People are leaving NY because the economy has been dead in the water for years. I've lived most of my life in either NY or NC. None of my fellow upstaters ever mention tax rates as the reason to move. And I don't know any rich people from NY who have moved to NC.

My uncle moved because the only job he could get was as a security guard, and he was an air force trained Russian linguist - former engineer for IBM.

loquitur · 09-17-2008, 09:13 AM

dc_dux, the notion that racism explains everything is a religious one, based on little but the wish to make it so. Most people have far better things to do with their time and far bigger problems to worry about than the amount of epidermal melanin their neighbors have. Please come up with logical, reason-based explanations rather than mystical ones.

Businesses want to make profits, and will move to where they can do so. If you prevent them from doing so by taking their money away through taxes, many of them will move. You simply cannot disprove that. It is an economic fact of life, no matter how deeply you wish it weren't so. Accusing people who run businesses of being racists is nonsensical. Especially when many of the businesses open in places like China and Vietnam (those pesky yellow people) or Bangladesh (where the people have dark skin). Yeah, must be racism.

I suppose I grouse about my tax bill here in NYC because I'm a racist, too.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 01 : 18 : 49-----
Poppinjay, I know plenty of people from NY who moved to places like TX because of taxes (or whose employers moved there because of taxes). Yes, the upstate economy has been in the toilet but the NYC economy hasn't. Lots of people who have transportable skills get tired of being treated like a sponge from whom money can be squeezed, and if they're business people whose businesses can move, they get tired of the sheer volume of hassle from regulators and unions. I know because a lot of these people are my clients. NYC has many attractioins, and people are willing to pay a lot to live here, but there are limits to everything.

Cynthetiq · 09-17-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

dc_dux, the notion that racism explains everything is a religious one, based on little but the wish to make it so. Most people have far better things to do with their time and far bigger problems to worry about than the amount of epidermal melanin their neighbors have. Please come up with logical, reason-based explanations rather than mystical ones.

Businesses want to make profits, and will move to where they can do so. If you prevent them from doing so by taking their money away through taxes, many of them will move. You simply cannot disprove that. It is an economic fact of life, no matter how deeply you wish it weren't so. Accusing people who run businesses of being racists is nonsensical. Especially when many of the businesses open in places like China and Vietnam (those pesky yellow people) or Bangladesh (where the people have dark skin). Yeah, must be racism.

I suppose I grouse about my tax bill here in NYC because I'm a racist, too.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 01 : 18 : 49-----
Poppinjay, I know plenty of people from NY who moved to places like TX because of taxes (or whose employers moved there because of taxes). Yes, the upstate economy has been in the toilet but the NYC economy hasn't. Lots of people who have transportable skills get tired of being treated like a sponge from whom money can be squeezed, and if they're business people whose businesses can move, they get tired of the sheer volume of hassle from regulators and unions. I know because a lot of these people are my clients. NYC has many attractioins, and people are willing to pay a lot to live here, but there are limits to everything.

True. One side of my family had a garment business in NYC for 20+ years. When it became advantageous to move to NJ for tax relief, they did. Racist?

France had a problem with the rich vacating France because of high taxes, moving themselves to Switzerland a few years ago. Racist there too?

I'm happy to try to reduce my taxes as much as I legally can with whatever is most comfortable for me to do so. Right now I don't want to move out of NYC, but in the future, that may change as my income changes.

dc_dux · 09-17-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

dc_dux, the notion that racism explains everything is a religious one.....

wow...I dont think I said racism explains everything.

I suggested there are probably many reasons for populations leaving NY and Cali....including "white flight" in Southern Cal.

I would add many other socio-economic factors - family issues, housing costs, recreational amenities, crime, more sedate lifestyle, etc. In fact, a publication that rates the "most livable states" considers 44 factors in their determination.

Its not all about taxes.

Cynthetiq · 09-17-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

wow...I dont think I said racism explains everything.

I suggested there are probably many reasons for populations leaving NY and Cali....including "white flight" in Southern Cal.

I would add many such socio-economic factors as family issues, housing costs, recreational amenities, crime, etc. In fact, a publication that rates the "most livable states" considers 44 factors in their determination.

Its not all about taxes.

fair enough, I'm sure you can agree that it does end with .... how much money you have in your pocket at some point vs. quality of life items (amentities, services, etc.)

dc_dux · 09-17-2008, 09:54 AM

cyn....sure, money is a very significant factor ..perhaps the most significant. But money in your pocket is also relative to employment opportunities, cost of living in NY/CA (as opposed to say ID/SC)

IMO, suggesting a direct correlation between taxes and population loss in these states, as is the case in ace's WSJ op ed, w/o considering numerous other socio-economic factors, is a stretch.

roachboy · 09-17-2008, 09:59 AM

who's soaking who, ace?

the right's focus on taxation is just another dodge of actual issues.
behind the endless whining about those put-upon wealthy people forced by demon government to pay taxes, there's stuff like this:

Quote:

Merrill Lynch's newly recruited chief executive, John Thain, stands to share a $200m (£111.4m) payout with two senior lieutenants for less than a year's work which culminated this week in the bank surrendering its 94-year-old independence.

The Wall Street bank known as the "thundering herd" agreed to a $50bn takeover by Bank of America on Monday after a hasty 48 hours of negotiation. The talks were prompted by fears over banking stability arising from the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Thain, who was previously the head of the New York Stock Exchange, joined Merrill in December with a mandate to steer the bank out of financial trouble. When he arrived, he was given a $15m signing on bonus. If he leaves in Bank of America's takeover, he stands to get a further $11m in accelerated stock payouts.

Two former Goldman Sachs executives hired by Thain are likely to do even better. Merrill's head of global trading, Thomas Montag, who joined in August, has already received a $39m bonus. Together with stock options accelerated by a buyout, he could end the year with $76m. The bank's head of strategy, Peter Kraus, was given a $95m package including bonuses and stock awards to replace his generous compensation at Goldman when he joined in May, according to figures obtained by Bloomberg News.

It is yet to be determined whether any of the trio will have a role at Bank of America. Even by the standards of Wall Street payouts, the sums are unusually high for such a short period of employment.

Steven Hall, a New York-based executive remuneration expert, told the Guardian that Merrill had little choice but to honour the contracts: "At the time they were recruiting [Thain], a negotiation took place and he would have told them this is what his price was. You can't go back and change things now — it's almost a kind of buyer's remorse we may be seeing."

Thain, 53, is a leading fundraiser for the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. A doctor's son, he is an amateur beekeeper who used to keep hives in his back garden. He bought a two-bedroom apartment on New York's Park Avenue two years ago which had an asking price of $27.5m. He was hired by Merrill to steady the ship after huge losses on the credit markets which were run up under the leadership of ousted chief executive Stan O'Neal.

At a press conference this week to announce the buyout by Bank of America, Thain admitted that selling Merrill was not the original plan: "This isn't necessarily the outcome I would have expected when I took the job."

He insisted that he had made progress in tidying up Merrill: "We've been consistently cleaning up the balance sheet, repairing the damage that had been done over the last two or three years."

Thain reportedly fought back tears at a meeting to brief staff on Merrill's buyout this week. Analysts say that Merrill's liabilities were greater than he could have anticipated when he joined — and some have praised his decision to sell.

Defenders of Wall Street's controversial pay packages generally argue that although bankers do well during good times, they hold insecure jobs which are vulnerable during downturns.

"What we do see is that when times get tough, people lose their jobs — and that's the ultimate in pay cuts," said Hall.

A Merrill Lynch spokesman said the bank would not comment on executive compensation beyond the statutory disclosures required in filings with regulators.

Banking crisis: Merrill Lynch top brass set to share $200m | Business | guardian.co.uk

such a crock of shit, it's hard to know where to even start with it.
you'd think the right would have ALOT to answer for in an actually open and democratic political system.

Yakk · 09-17-2008, 10:22 AM

I've yet to see a "top marginal tax rate vs GDP growth" scatter plot.

I have seen capital gains taxes vs GDP growth scatterplot ... and it sure doesn't say "higher capital gains taxes slow GDP growth".

Also note that the "highest marginal rate" in the OP's graph ... was at over 5 million dollars annually back in 1936. In todays dollars, that is $78,807,913.67. So to hit that, over 20 years, you'd have to realize over 1.5 billion dollars in employment income -- I fully expect, like today, that capital gains and income from investments are easily in utterly different categories that do not pay attention to the same rates as standard income.

If you then follow the "lowering of the top rate", it comes in nearly (not completely) lock-step with lowering the point at which the top rate is hit -- what seems to be going on is a stripping off of nearly-never-realized rates, with nowhere near the same significant change in the actual top marginal rate, over the vast majority of that graph.

In short, the OP seems to be drawing conclusions from that graph that are not remotely supported by the underlying data, and that graph seems to be ridiculously misleading in what it means.

Cynthetiq · 09-17-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

cyn....sure, money is a very significant factor ..perhaps the most significant. But money in your pocket is also relative to employment opportunities, cost of living in NY/CA (as opposed to say ID/SC)

IMO, suggesting a direct correlation between taxes and population loss in these states, as is the case in ace's WSJ op ed, w/o considering numerous other socio-economic factors, is a stretch.

If you look at Jersey City, NJ in the early 90s it was a wasteland of empty warehouses and loading docks. Why did the financial companies move there? Because NJ gave better tax breaks to the companies and they didn't have to worry about losing the workforce since there was public transportation infrastructure to fascilitate commuting. Eventually housing was also built, and today it's a small forest of skyscrapers.

So I don't think of it as much as a stretch as you do. Companies relocate to tax incentives, and people move for jobs.

dc_dux · 09-17-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

If you look at Jersey City, NJ in the early 90s it was a wasteland of empty warehouses and loading docks. Why did the financial companies move there? Because NJ gave better tax breaks to the companies and they didn't have to worry about losing the workforce since there was public transportation infrastructure to fascilitate commuting. Eventually housing was also built, and today it's a small forest of skyscrapers.

So I don't think of it as much as a stretch as you do. Companies relocate to tax incentives, and people move for jobs.

Sure...that makes sense.

At the same time, thousands of NY "snowbird" retirees moved to Florida in that same time span...some for the taxes, many for the weather (year round mah johng and golf...and cheap "early bird" dinners near every retirement community!).

Cynthetiq · 09-17-2008, 11:13 AM

Our NORC is getting full up again because the retirees are moving back to NYC in droves. They can't drive any longer and their family and friends are up here. It's been interesting watching them return and lament on the changes of the city.

loquitur · 09-17-2008, 11:13 AM

RB, I agree that it stinks for the top guys to walk away with a lot of bucks in a failure situation. But what do you propose to do about it? Have you ever negotiated an employment contract for someone who really didn't need your high-stress, high-visibilty job and is eagerly sought after by other employers? Typically the would-be employee says something like this: "I'm in demand, I don't need this job because (a) I'm already rich and (b) I have plenty of other companies that want me. But I like your opportunity, so I'm willing to work for you. Pay me a salary of whatever, give me stock options so I can get an upside if/when do well, and you know what else? I want you to protect my downside, too. If you want the right to fire me, or if you want to sell the company and put me out of a job, I want you to have to think long and hard before you do it. It'll cost you." If the board wants to hire this guy badly enough, they'll swallow those conditions. They usually do. The reason is that the talent pool for top executives just isn't that big. It's much smaller than the demand, as the current wave of failures amply demonstrates. So the boards pay up and hope they hired the right person. Does it stink? Sure. Is there anything to do about it? Well, other than have boards negotiate harder, no.

Thain, by the way, was brought in to clean up a mess that his predecessor, Stanley O'Neal, hadn't cleaned up. Thain before that was Pres of the NY Stock Exchange, which he was recrutied for after Richard Grasso was forced out - Thain was "Mr Clean." He was already a very rich man by the time Merrill hired him. And I'll bet his negotiation with Merrill's board looked almost exactly like what I described above.

jorgelito · 09-17-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

who's soaking who, ace?

the right's focus on taxation is just another dodge of actual issues.
behind the endless whining about those put-upon wealthy people forced by demon government to pay taxes, there's stuff like this:

Banking crisis: Merrill Lynch top brass set to share $200m | Business | guardian.co.uk

such a crock of shit, it's hard to know where to even start with it.
you'd think the right would have ALOT to answer for in an actually open and democratic political system.

So what do you propose? What do you think is the best course of action? I am in total agreement and outrage over excessive executive compensation (though I don't think it's fair to just keep pinning things on the right. Both sides are guilty). Something smells rotten to me in that area. The Merrill Lynch example is a mere drop in the bucket. There are so many other examples it is ridiculous.

Unfortunately I don't know how to fix it in a reasonable manner. I would have hoped the shareholders would have rioted or consumers protested.

aceventura3 · 01-06-2009, 08:39 AM

I came across some more "voodoo" supply side economics stuff.

I was reading 1/12/09 print edition of Forbes magazine, page 15 and came across some interesting information. Steve Forbes made a commentary on how Ireland "gets it". The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5%, in the US it is the second highest in the world at 35% (not including state tax). Then he looked at corporate taxes as a percent of GDP. In 2007 Ireland corporate taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was 3.4%, in the US it is 2.7%. Imagine that, lower tax rates with a higher relative tax collection rate. I sure hope that Democrats start to "get it"

Derwood · 01-06-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I came across some more "voodoo" supply side economics stuff.

I was reading 1/12/09 print edition of Forbes magazine, page 15 and came across some interesting information. Steve Forbes made a commentary on how Ireland "gets it". The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5%, in the US it is the second highest in the world at 35% (not including state tax). Then he looked at corporate taxes as a percent of GDP. In 2007 Ireland corporate taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was 3.4%, in the US it is 2.7%. Imagine that, lower tax rates with a higher relative tax collection rate. I sure hope that Democrats start to "get it"

Are you seriously comparing two countries with such a vast disparity in population and GDP? You can do better than that.

BTW, Ireland is often propped up by Ron Paul supporters as well.

aceventura3 · 01-06-2009, 09:53 AM

I quoted Forbes, he made the comparison. He used percentage of GDP to illustrate his point on a relative basis. There is tons of evidence supporting supply side economic theories, I have generally found that those who dispute supply side will ignore all the evidence that supports it. I just enjoy pulling the chain every once in a while. And, like Paul I have strong libertarian leanings.

dksuddeth · 01-06-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Are you seriously comparing two countries with such a vast disparity in population and GDP? You can do better than that.

BTW, Ireland is often propped up by Ron Paul supporters as well.

that was a good one. throw in the ron paul supporters remark to make the comparison of population, tax rates, and gdp look radical and goofy.

Derwood · 01-06-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

that was a good one. throw in the ron paul supporters remark to make the comparison of population, tax rates, and gdp look radical and goofy.

just saying that I hear Ireland come up A LOT when it comes to taxes, and Ron Paul folks are all about taxes.

dc_dux · 01-06-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I quoted Forbes, he made the comparison. He used percentage of GDP to illustrate his point on a relative basis. There is tons of evidence supporting supply side economic theories, I have generally found that those who dispute supply side will ignore all the evidence that supports it. I just enjoy pulling the chain every once in a while. And, like Paul I have strong libertarian leanings.

Not among your tons of evidence:

Quote:

Ah - commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Nope....I dont see the revenue booms from the Reagan/G Bush tax cuts either.

Yep....voodoo economics!

loquitur · 01-07-2009, 01:45 PM

Bailout fever is out of control.

Cynthetiq · 01-07-2009, 01:59 PM

oh, that's just priceless.

ASU2003 · 01-07-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I quoted Forbes, he made the comparison. He used percentage of GDP to illustrate his point on a relative basis. There is tons of evidence supporting supply side economic theories, I have generally found that those who dispute supply side will ignore all the evidence that supports it. I just enjoy pulling the chain every once in a while. And, like Paul I have strong libertarian leanings.

Ireland is a little larger than West Virgina with a little more than twice the population (4.3 mil vs 1.8).

So, if they do lower the tax rate down to 15% in the US, what would happen? Would employers add more jobs now that they have things efficient with who they have currently? Would they keep the profits? The stock market would go up, but it isn't a 'real' improvement to the business. Would companies have money to invest in overseas production for importing back to the US?

I would support a lower tax rate on new small businesses for the first 5-8 years that they are in business or until they get bought out. Maybe even a tiered tax rate would be ok. If they had revenue of under $1 mil, they are at 10%, $1-10mil, 25%, 10 mil and up 39%.

aceventura3 · 10-08-2009, 07:57 AM

This appeared on the editorial page of IBD, and no I don't work for them:

Quote:

Soak-The-Rich Strategies Backfire In State After Deficit-Ridden State

By STEVEN MALANGAPosted 10/07/2009 06:13 PM ET

When David Paterson became governor of New York after Eliot Spitzer's hooker escapades, the former state senator from Harlem shocked New Yorkers by declaring that taxes were too high and that he had many friends who had left the state because there were better opportunities elsewhere.

New York had to grab control of its spending rather than continue raising taxes, said the former state senator with a long tax-and-spend track record, in what amounted to the equivalent of ideological heresy.

Still, as a political lightweight and accidental governor, Paterson quickly got rolled by the big-government wing of his own party, which passed a budget for this year with $6.1 billion in projected new taxes and fees, led by sharply higher rates starting for those earning more than $200,000 a year.

Asked if the budget made sense in the recession, an outgunned Paterson said: "None of this makes sense."

I suppose it is cold comfort to New Yorkers that Paterson is now giving his political enemies the "I told you so" treatment. Speaking to reporters recently in Albany, Paterson noted that revenue from tax increases was running 20% below projections and that, in particular, the wealthy were not paying up. So far, the state had only collected about half of an expected $1 billion in income tax revenues from the state's wealthiest residents.

"You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,'" Paterson said. "We've done that. We've probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state."

In a story about New York's tax woes, the Associated Press noted that other states that had enacted so-called millionaires' taxes (most of which, like New York's, start well under $1 million in annual income) were squirming upon hearing the New York numbers. Actually, some of these states have been squirming for a while.

New Jersey enacted its millionaires' tax in 2004. Pitched by the state's unions as the cure for Jersey's budget woes, the state collected $9.5 billion in personal income taxes in fiscal 2005. Last year, four budget cycles later, the state collected only $10.3 billion, and this year it's estimating just $9.4 billion from the same tax.

Revenues have fallen so far below projections that Jersey has actually had to cut its spending (not just its rate of spending, like most states) by more than $3 billion this year despite $2 billion in federal stimulus aid for the state budget. And even so, Jersey had to skip payments to its pension system.

Investors.com - Soak-The-Rich Strategies Backfire In State After Deficit-Ridden State

loquitur · 10-08-2009, 08:03 AM

This is a function of the fact that there is no market discipline at the government level because there is no competition -- and therefore there is no appreciation of the concept of trade-offs. The NY state legislators really do seem to think they can just pass a law and that will magically make things be the way they want them to be.

aceventura3 · 10-08-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

This is a function of the fact that there is no market discipline at the government level because there is no competition -- and therefore there is no appreciation of the concept of trade-offs. The NY state legislators really do seem to think they can just pass a law and that will magically make things be the way they want them to be.

It seems that some don't realize that the "rich"have choice.

filtherton · 10-08-2009, 04:17 PM

IBD? The same IBD who claimed that Stephen Hawking would've died had he been raised in the UK?

I do appreciate their tricky use of numbers. For instance, fiscal year 2005: begins in 2004, the same year Jersey enacted their new tax. Do you think they know how much income tax Jersey brought in prior to the implementation of their millionaires tax? Me neither. It probably would have been useful as a comparison to how much they brought in after the tax was implemented.

As for revenue shortfalls, the revenues in my home state of Minnesota have also fallen far below projections (especially if you compare them with pre worldwide financial meltdown projections) and over the last two terms of our governor our tax policy has taken a hard right turn. There's this little thing called a global economic downturn that seems to be having a negative effect on tax revenues. Perhaps IBD has heard of it. The fact that they don't take this into account in their discussion of revenue shortfalls seems a bit odd.

I know of one rich person who promised to leave NY if they enacted their new tax and he has yet to follow through: Rush Limbaugh.

Now, I'm not an econ guy, and I had to look up fiscal year start/end times because honestly that shit baffles me, so I recognize that my analysis might be incorrect. But as someone who recalls IBD's laughable Stephen Hawking references, I recognize that it's just as possible that they don't have any clue what the fuck they're talking about.

Cynthetiq · 10-08-2009, 04:35 PM

I thought Rush has his official home in Florida, no state income taxes there....

filtherton · 10-08-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I thought Rush has his official home in Florida, no state income taxes there....

He was talking about packing up his show and taking it elsewhere.

aceventura3 · 11-20-2009, 08:45 AM

Even more IBD editiorial stuff that liberals can dismiss. But perhaps California is a cautionary tale, in particular note the last paragraph:

Quote:

State Budgets: California's slide into fiscal oblivion continues, with no end in sight. Despite lots of budget cuts this year, a $21 billion deficit looms. The politicians' solution? Stop selling high-definition TVs in the state.

It's starting to become routine. Last February, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new spending plan with "real, lasting reforms" that would help close its $36 billion-plus deficit and ensure the state never got so out of fiscal whack again.

And just four months ago the Governator and California's worst-in-the-country legislature agreed to a plan to close a $24 billion budget gap by cutting spending amid a deep plunge in tax revenues.

Flash forward to this week when — no surprise here — the Legislative Analyst's Office announced the budget would show a $21 billion deficit in the current and coming fiscal years, much bigger than forecast earlier. Seems all the cuts didn't do the job.

Also on Wednesday, a study showed not only that this year's "reforms" achieved nothing, but that the deficits the state has run for over a decade — which are illegal under California's Constitution — would continue for years.

Welcome to the once-Golden State, where legislators seem to take delight in tearing down all the things that once made it the greatest place to live in America — and possibly the world.

For 18 years, the state has spent more than it has taken in. A lot more. Over that stretch, total spending grew 5.9% a year on average, to $144.5 billion. A general rule of thumb says states should increase spending no faster than the rate of growth in population plus inflation. Over the same period, California's population plus inflation grew just 4.4% a year, 25% slower than the actual budget.

According to a study earlier this year by the Reason Foundation, if the state had kept spending growth to 4.4%, instead of 5.9%, the state would today have a $15 billion surplus. Instead, in just the past three years, it has rung up deficits of $81 billion. This is the kind of fiscal profligacy one sees in Third World nations on the verge of collapse, not in the world's seventh-largest economy.

Why is this happening? Because in addition to spending too much, the state suffers from plunging tax revenues. But not because taxes are too low. California is losing employers and entrepreneurs by the thousands. They are fed up with soaring taxes and an aggressively hostile business environment.

Investors.com - California's Suicide

filtherton · 11-20-2009, 09:47 AM

The reason IBD is so readily dismissible is that they write the kind of editorials that are generally so full of cherry picked facts and flawed reasoning that only someone with a strong confirmation bias could find them compelling. I think critical thought is much more to blame for dismissal of IBD editorials than anything else. There's nothing inherently liberal about critical thought.

aceventura3 · 11-20-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The reason IBD is so readily dismissible is that they write the kind of editorials that are generally so full of cherry picked facts and flawed reasoning that only someone with a strong confirmation bias could find them compelling. I think critical thought is much more to blame for dismissal of IBD editorials than anything else. There's nothing inherently liberal about critical thought.

Why not tell us about the "flawed reasoning"? I moved my business out of California in 2006, I know many others who did the same thing.

Or, why not tell us about me and how easily I am dismissible, gee I have not heard that in about, since my last post in another thread.

filtherton · 11-20-2009, 11:09 AM

I've pointed out glaring flaws in IBD editorials on the board before, and you failed to respond. Pardon me if I don't go out of my way to do it again. To tell you the truth, I didn't even read the editorial you posted because it has been my experience that whoever writes the editorials for IBD is either completely ignorant of reality, completely disingenuous or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a waste of my internet time to try and wrap my head around whatever bullshit they're spewing.

And I didn't say anything about your dismissability. I said that IBD editorials are easily dismissible. Your assumption that I was talking about you when even a casual reading of what I actually wrote would have showed you otherwise (unless you're the one writing these editorials) only confirms the appropriateness of my lack of faith in your ability to correctly interpret factual information. I can see why you like IBD editorials. <-this is me now dismissing you.

boink · 11-20-2009, 11:26 PM

loquitur

Quote:

the people who would suffer are the ones who work in restaurants and hotels.

so if you can't write your lunch off as business expense you'd brown bag it ? or maybe bring camping gear and sleep in a tent in the park ?

how is eating lunch leading to paperwork business any more than when a labourer has lunch and possibly chat's w/ co workers about projects running through the shop ? I talk w/ my coworkers every day about work during lunch but I don't ask the government to knock that yearly total off my taxes. I don't think I can.

you wright it off weather it's talking with a client your selling to or someone who works in your company with you on projects right ?

white collar guys can wright off work wardrobe citing the need to look presentable right ? I can't wright off work clothes which I need to buy cause they get destroyed at a metal shop. but I can't wright them off my taxes. at least an office guy can sell his clothes on consignment when he gets tired of them, mine are rags.

aceventura3 · 11-21-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I've pointed out glaring flaws in IBD editorials on the board before, and you failed to respond.

If I don't respond it could be because I didn't read the post or did not see it.

Quote:

To tell you the truth, I didn't even read the editorial you posted because it has been my experience that whoever writes the editorials for IBD is either completely ignorant of reality, completely disingenuous or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a waste of my internet time to try and wrap my head around whatever bullshit they're spewing.

Occasionally I post traditional editorials from IBD and occasionally they are opinion peices from various authors that appear on IBD editorial pages. IBD regularlly includes liberals on their editorial pages. On the same day they published their California editorial they had an opinion piece on their editorial pages written by Eugene Robinson, here it is FYI:

Quote:

By EUGENE ROBINSONPosted 11/19/2009 07:28 PM ET

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "Trial of the Century" hoopla.

The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury — sitting just blocks from ground zero — will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.

Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard — whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM — is never going to see the light of day.

The uproar is really about the word "war." Outrage is being voiced by those who worry that Holder and President Obama are abandoning the Bush-era doctrine of a "war on terrorism" that must at all times be conducted by military means.

Those critics are wrong. The problem is that we can vanquish al-Qaida and its affiliated groups without defeating the larger enemy: a militant, fundamentalist perversion of Islam.

We can and should go after Osama bin Laden and his collaborators with relentless determination and, yes, that fight should be led by our armed forces. But to achieve a meaningful victory, we also have to win the war of ideas — and in that philosophical and theological struggle, the concept of justice is a key battlefield.

It's amazing that so many people who insist on the "war on terrorism" framework apparently have such little interest in understanding the enemy, which seems to me the only way to find the enemy's vulnerabilities. The jihadist narrative is largely about justice, or rather what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice.

In the enemy's version of history, the West — meaning the U.S., Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom — has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world.

We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.

Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam

Investors.com - KSM On Trial: Battlefield For A War Of Ideas

So you could be calling the liberals that appear on the IBD editorial pages completely ignorant or we can say that your view of IBD is based some misconceptions. For the record I generally don't post things here that don't support my views. I am and have been guilty of "cherry picking" and I admit it. But, in my view that is the nature of debate, and I think participants in debate (even passive participants) need to do their own homework. You know, like Reagan said: "trust but verify".

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by boink

white collar guys can wright off work wardrobe citing the need to look presentable right ? I can't wright off work clothes which I need to buy cause they get destroyed at a metal shop.

The tax laws regarding legitimate business expenses are the same for everyone regardless of the color of their collar. In order to take deductions for normal clothing one has to be able to present a strong case to the IRS when they get audited, normally it is not allowed. It is easier to deduct required specialty work related clothing, like safety shoes, uniforms, hard hats, gloves, etc.

filtherton · 11-21-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So you could be calling the liberals that appear on the IBD editorial pages completely ignorant or we can say that your view of IBD is based some misconceptions. For the record I generally don't post things here that don't support my views. I am and have been guilty of "cherry picking" and I admit it. But, in my view that is the nature of debate, and I think participants in debate (even passive participants) need to do their own homework. You know, like Reagan said: "trust but verify".

I think that it's safe to say that my impression of IBD might be based on misconceptions, but in all fairness to me, those misconceptions were based almost entirely on the things you posted from IBD. Also, any publication that bases an editorial on the premise that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive had he been subject to the British healthcare system without actually verifying that he hadn't been subject to the British healthcare system has lost all credibility. So regardless of whether they have editorialists who aren't hacks, be they liberal or conservative, I'm not going to assume that the facts and conclusions set forth in their editorials are worthy of serious consideration.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, most editorials, be they IBD or no, are equivalent to long farty noises in terms of usefulness.

aceventura3 · 11-23-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

... I'm not going to assume that the facts and conclusions set forth in their editorials are worthy of serious consideration.

I don't assume that either, if I read an editorial that contains information that I question I check the sources. Regarding IBD's assessment of California's small business climate and the impact it is having on their budget, I have direct personal experience that confirms the information in the editorial, and I have been looking at California demographic trends for about 10 years. For a number of years I was a small business owner and tax payer in California. I left the state. I personally know many others who did the same. Currently I am not paying taxes in California or providing jobs in California, multiply that by the the thousands and thousands of others who have done the same and sooner than later it starts to have a big impact. California will get through this crisis because sooner or later they will do what needs to be done in terms of cutting taxes and cutting spending and businesses and middle class people will return - after all it is or can be a great place to live and make money.

dc_dux · 11-23-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

.....I have been looking at California demographic trends for about 10 years. For a number of years I was a small business owner and tax payer in California. I left the state. I personally know many others who did the same....

Ten year trends?

From SBA and Census data:

In 2000, there were 658,898 small businesses (under 500 employees) in California; in 2008, there were 723,880.

aceventura3 · 11-24-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ten year trends?

From SBA and Census data:

In 2000, there were 658,898 small businesses (under 500 employees) in California; in 2008, there were 723,880.

Let's play battle of the factoids (Factoid - in the context of not disputing the accuracy but in putting bits of information on the table that could lead to improper conclusions), i love these "chest pounding" contests.

Population Shift to Southeast and Rocky Mountains Accelerates | Construction Industry News | Reed Construction Data

I won't give my interpretation of the graphic above, everyone can come to their own conclusions. I just ask, who do you think is leaving California and why? Who is going to California and why?

In response to your factoid - it shows small business growth of about 10%. In 2000 the California state expenditures was a little less than $80 billion, in 2008 the number was close to $105 billion a 31% increase. Here is a link to a data table showing non-farm employment growth of 6.9% from 2000 to 2007. It is not a perfect match but population growth from 2000 to 2008 was 8.5%. Is there something wrong here? Perhaps, don't you agree?
California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

aceventura3 · 03-01-2010, 12:34 PM

As we study the root causes of the "financial crisis" my theory is that the people in charge of regulating the system are always going to be one step behind those who work in the system to make money. When the system gets so complicated what we find is that "rich" people will always find ways around well intentioned government policy. So, government should stop with social engineering and develop systems that are simple and fair. What follows won't get much attension and a few are pointing out this conflict with the former Treasury Secretary and his former company Goldman. All I can say is that the guy is pretty smart, here is why:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -

For Henry Paulson Jr., a Goldman-sized tax loophole awaits his pleasure.

High-flying business executives almost always endure financial sacrifice when they make a detour into public service. Paulson is no different: The Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ) boss will see his annual paycheck shrink from last year's $38 million to a paltry $183,500 once he takes over the job of Treasury secretary.

But don't shed too many tears for Paulson. He has amassed quite a fortune--a roughly $700 million equity stake in Wall Street's premier investment banking house. And soon, he will have the chance to diversify a good chunk of those holdings without paying a dime to the Internal Revenue Service.

By accepting the Treasury post, Paulson is poised to take advantage of a tax loophole that allows government officials to defer capital gains taxes on assets they have to sell to avoid a conflict of interest, as long as the proceeds are reinvested in government securities or a broad array of mutual funds approved by the government within 60 days.

Technically, the tax kicks in once these replacement assets are sold, using the purchase price of the original assets as the cost basis, says Tom Ochsenschlager of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. But why sell when you can avoid the tax altogether?

"The idea is never to sell," says Robert Willens, the top tax and accounting analyst at Lehman Brothers. "If you're able to hold onto the replacement assets until your demise, you never have to pay it."

The tax break was designed to ensure that the wealthy are not deterred from taking posts in government because they fear a big tax hit. But it amounts to a significant perk of public office.

Paulson's huge equity stake in Goldman served him well as he flitted around the globe singing the firm's praises to potential clients and investors. It was hard evidence of his faith in Goldman's continued success. But once he is gone from the bank, such a giant concentration of assets could be somewhat of an albatross for Paulson, who, at 60, is surely considering the tax consequences of diversifying his fortune.

It is not a stretch to suppose that, at the margin, the chance to unwind his stake in Goldman Sachs tax-free may have had an influence on his decision to take the Treasury job. After all, if he were to completely divest himself without any tax relief, he would be staring at a tax bill of well over $100 million, Willens says.

A Loophole For Poor Mr. Paulson - Forbes.com

The guy serves two years in a lame duck administration and pockets $100 million in tax savings.

*Assume he cashes out at around the peak for Goldman, maximizing his pay or profits.
He buys treasuries, risk free, positive returns.

*Financial crisis hits.

* He drafts TARP and gets Congress to take the credit.

*TARP gives him the freedom to do what he wants with over $700 billion. Obama and other "smart" people say it meets their requirements, etc., etc. - not really having a clue, but it was good campaign rhetoric.

*TARP money goes to AIG for a bailout so AIG can pay Goldaman, not pennies on the dollar, but dollar on the dollar (plus their profit on the deals)

*Goldman's stock price drops significantly from its peak, along with every other financial company.

*Goldman's competition is lessened by some competitors going out of business.

*Goldman becomes a "commercial bank" without any commercial banking activities. Approved by regulators.

*Goldman gets bailout money.

*Goldman get access to low/no cost access to credit from the Federal Reserve.

*Goldman makes mo money, mo money, mo money.

*Somewhere in there Paulson's term expires as Treasury Secretary.

I don't know what he does, I speculate:

Let's say after his term expires he starts buying Goldman stock which is undervalued. And now of course the stock price is rebounding from its lows. The company is positioned in the market with less competitions and now Paulson can make, mo money, mo money, mo money. Like I said the guy is pretty smart.

I was against TARP from the beginning. Most people were aware of the potential conflict, and for those not aware were told about it - it was ignored. The average American got absolutely no benefit from TARP. TARP did not save us from the "brink", all it did was allow a select few "rich" people make, mo money, mo money, mo money.

McCain is now saying he was "duped", at least he is being honest. Now I am seeing "holier than thou" types make fun of him. I am amazed.

09-17-2008, 09:04 AM	#122 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	People are leaving NY because the economy has been dead in the water for years. I've lived most of my life in either NY or NC. None of my fellow upstaters ever mention tax rates as the reason to move. And I don't know any rich people from NY who have moved to NC. My uncle moved because the only job he could get was as a security guard, and he was an air force trained Russian linguist - former engineer for IBM. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

09-17-2008, 09:13 AM	#123 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	dc_dux, the notion that racism explains everything is a religious one, based on little but the wish to make it so. Most people have far better things to do with their time and far bigger problems to worry about than the amount of epidermal melanin their neighbors have. Please come up with logical, reason-based explanations rather than mystical ones. Businesses want to make profits, and will move to where they can do so. If you prevent them from doing so by taking their money away through taxes, many of them will move. You simply cannot disprove that. It is an economic fact of life, no matter how deeply you wish it weren't so. Accusing people who run businesses of being racists is nonsensical. Especially when many of the businesses open in places like China and Vietnam (those pesky yellow people) or Bangladesh (where the people have dark skin). Yeah, must be racism. I suppose I grouse about my tax bill here in NYC because I'm a racist, too. -----Added 17/9/2008 at 01 : 18 : 49----- Poppinjay, I know plenty of people from NY who moved to places like TX because of taxes (or whose employers moved there because of taxes). Yes, the upstate economy has been in the toilet but the NYC economy hasn't. Lots of people who have transportable skills get tired of being treated like a sponge from whom money can be squeezed, and if they're business people whose businesses can move, they get tired of the sheer volume of hassle from regulators and unions. I know because a lot of these people are my clients. NYC has many attractioins, and people are willing to pay a lot to live here, but there are limits to everything. Last edited by loquitur; 09-17-2008 at 09:18 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-17-2008, 09:54 AM	#127 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	cyn....sure, money is a very significant factor ..perhaps the most significant. But money in your pocket is also relative to employment opportunities, cost of living in NY/CA (as opposed to say ID/SC) IMO, suggesting a direct correlation between taxes and population loss in these states, as is the case in ace's WSJ op ed, w/o considering numerous other socio-economic factors, is a stretch. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-17-2008 at 09:57 AM..

09-17-2008, 10:22 AM	#129 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	I've yet to see a "top marginal tax rate vs GDP growth" scatter plot. I have seen capital gains taxes vs GDP growth scatterplot ... and it sure doesn't say "higher capital gains taxes slow GDP growth". Also note that the "highest marginal rate" in the OP's graph ... was at over 5 million dollars annually back in 1936. In todays dollars, that is $78,807,913.67. So to hit that, over 20 years, you'd have to realize over 1.5 billion dollars in employment income -- I fully expect, like today, that capital gains and income from investments are easily in utterly different categories that do not pay attention to the same rates as standard income. If you then follow the "lowering of the top rate", it comes in nearly (not completely) lock-step with lowering the point at which the top rate is hit -- what seems to be going on is a stripping off of nearly-never-realized rates, with nowhere near the same significant change in the actual top marginal rate, over the vast majority of that graph. In short, the OP seems to be drawing conclusions from that graph that are not remotely supported by the underlying data, and that graph seems to be ridiculously misleading in what it means. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

09-17-2008, 11:13 AM	#132 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Our NORC is getting full up again because the retirees are moving back to NYC in droves. They can't drive any longer and their family and friends are up here. It's been interesting watching them return and lament on the changes of the city. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-17-2008, 11:13 AM	#133 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	RB, I agree that it stinks for the top guys to walk away with a lot of bucks in a failure situation. But what do you propose to do about it? Have you ever negotiated an employment contract for someone who really didn't need your high-stress, high-visibilty job and is eagerly sought after by other employers? Typically the would-be employee says something like this: "I'm in demand, I don't need this job because (a) I'm already rich and (b) I have plenty of other companies that want me. But I like your opportunity, so I'm willing to work for you. Pay me a salary of whatever, give me stock options so I can get an upside if/when do well, and you know what else? I want you to protect my downside, too. If you want the right to fire me, or if you want to sell the company and put me out of a job, I want you to have to think long and hard before you do it. It'll cost you." If the board wants to hire this guy badly enough, they'll swallow those conditions. They usually do. The reason is that the talent pool for top executives just isn't that big. It's much smaller than the demand, as the current wave of failures amply demonstrates. So the boards pay up and hope they hired the right person. Does it stink? Sure. Is there anything to do about it? Well, other than have boards negotiate harder, no. Thain, by the way, was brought in to clean up a mess that his predecessor, Stanley O'Neal, hadn't cleaned up. Thain before that was Pres of the NY Stock Exchange, which he was recrutied for after Richard Grasso was forced out - Thain was "Mr Clean." He was already a very rich man by the time Merrill hired him. And I'll bet his negotiation with Merrill's board looked almost exactly like what I described above.

01-06-2009, 08:39 AM	#135 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I came across some more "voodoo" supply side economics stuff. I was reading 1/12/09 print edition of Forbes magazine, page 15 and came across some interesting information. Steve Forbes made a commentary on how Ireland "gets it". The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5%, in the US it is the second highest in the world at 35% (not including state tax). Then he looked at corporate taxes as a percent of GDP. In 2007 Ireland corporate taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was 3.4%, in the US it is 2.7%. Imagine that, lower tax rates with a higher relative tax collection rate. I sure hope that Democrats start to "get it" __________________ "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."

01-06-2009, 09:53 AM	#137 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I quoted Forbes, he made the comparison. He used percentage of GDP to illustrate his point on a relative basis. There is tons of evidence supporting supply side economic theories, I have generally found that those who dispute supply side will ignore all the evidence that supports it. I just enjoy pulling the chain every once in a while. And, like Paul I have strong libertarian leanings. __________________ "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."

01-07-2009, 01:45 PM	#141 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Bailout fever is out of control.

01-07-2009, 01:59 PM	#142 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	oh, that's just priceless. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-08-2009, 08:03 AM	#145 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	This is a function of the fact that there is no market discipline at the government level because there is no competition -- and therefore there is no appreciation of the concept of trade-offs. The NY state legislators really do seem to think they can just pass a law and that will magically make things be the way they want them to be.

10-08-2009, 04:17 PM	#147 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	IBD? The same IBD who claimed that Stephen Hawking would've died had he been raised in the UK? I do appreciate their tricky use of numbers. For instance, fiscal year 2005: begins in 2004, the same year Jersey enacted their new tax. Do you think they know how much income tax Jersey brought in prior to the implementation of their millionaires tax? Me neither. It probably would have been useful as a comparison to how much they brought in after the tax was implemented. As for revenue shortfalls, the revenues in my home state of Minnesota have also fallen far below projections (especially if you compare them with pre worldwide financial meltdown projections) and over the last two terms of our governor our tax policy has taken a hard right turn. There's this little thing called a global economic downturn that seems to be having a negative effect on tax revenues. Perhaps IBD has heard of it. The fact that they don't take this into account in their discussion of revenue shortfalls seems a bit odd. I know of one rich person who promised to leave NY if they enacted their new tax and he has yet to follow through: Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not an econ guy, and I had to look up fiscal year start/end times because honestly that shit baffles me, so I recognize that my analysis might be incorrect. But as someone who recalls IBD's laughable Stephen Hawking references, I recognize that it's just as possible that they don't have any clue what the fuck they're talking about.

10-08-2009, 04:35 PM	#148 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I thought Rush has his official home in Florida, no state income taxes there.... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-20-2009, 09:47 AM	#151 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The reason IBD is so readily dismissible is that they write the kind of editorials that are generally so full of cherry picked facts and flawed reasoning that only someone with a strong confirmation bias could find them compelling. I think critical thought is much more to blame for dismissal of IBD editorials than anything else. There's nothing inherently liberal about critical thought.

11-20-2009, 11:09 AM	#153 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I've pointed out glaring flaws in IBD editorials on the board before, and you failed to respond. Pardon me if I don't go out of my way to do it again. To tell you the truth, I didn't even read the editorial you posted because it has been my experience that whoever writes the editorials for IBD is either completely ignorant of reality, completely disingenuous or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a waste of my internet time to try and wrap my head around whatever bullshit they're spewing. And I didn't say anything about your dismissability. I said that IBD editorials are easily dismissible. Your assumption that I was talking about you when even a casual reading of what I actually wrote would have showed you otherwise (unless you're the one writing these editorials) only confirms the appropriateness of my lack of faith in your ability to correctly interpret factual information. I can see why you like IBD editorials. <-this is me now dismissing you.