Shades

roachboy, fair enough. But I'd rather see businesses taxed and held to tax laws, no loopholes, than see individuals have to pay up. I'm pretty sure that corporations make more money than the CEOs that work for them (most times, sadly not always, SCO) so it just makes more sense to go to them for the money.

As I'm not a politician and don't work for one, I'm not sure I can have political reasons for doing things per se. Seeing as how both parties are Hellbent on taking as much money as spending it as fast as they can lately, I don't think it's politically biased of me one way or the other to oppose higher individual taxes. Perhaps that's the proper way to frame the question that started in my head with that article- is the government wrong to raise individual taxes, when they're already at such a high percentage, while allowing businesses all kinds of loopholes and allowing money to be funneled and misspent and just plain lost? I say, no.

Side note- French Revolution? What, seriously? They cleared out some monarchy, got saddled with bureaucrats and petty nobles who quickly solidified their power base, did a bad job of running the place, and let Napoleon take over. How was that a success? I can't help but notice that the poor in France aren't exactly running the show these days, and haven't been for quite some time.

poco_vino

A little bit of over-generalization there, wouldn't you say?

Deficits do not pose a problem for our economy (in fact they help it--somebody gets to keep the interest), interest rates pose the problem.

It is still being argued in the economic realm, but:

You CANNOT state "largest deficit" without stating the corresponding interest rate. We are not paying off the deficit (and we probably never will) we are making payments on the national debt. That being said, if the the deficit were decreased by 25% but the interest rose 15% (not a real number--just an example) we would actually being paying more.

We are a Free-Market system and must stay that way to sustain growth. Tax increases, never, ever, ever, ever cause growth in a Free-Market, they hinder it. The logic behind it is simple; the money must come from somewhere. Tax increases will always trickle down to the consumer--always. This has a negative affect on the demand. Demand goes down, supply goes down, prices go up again, yada, yada, yada.

Free the money in the economy and the system WILL ALWAYS seek equilibrium. It is a slow process but that is the nature of the beast.

That being said, we ABSOLUTELY MUST KEEP government spending in check (which it isn't now).

Very simple equation to market growth:

Lower tax rates + gov't spending cannot increase by more than 4% = Healthy Economy. If the spending by the government is kept in check, we will be o.k.

BTW - I keep up with economic news and I haven't heard any economist state anything like the line quoted above. The only negative I am hearing is in regards to the spending increases--a problem of the President and Congress (both parties).

There is a reason there is so much good news coming out regarding the economy. The last thing we should do is stifle it.

*gets off of soapbox and shuts up*

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

poco_vino

*gets back up on the soapbox, because I am a dumbass and forgot something*

We can go back and forth, each side having points.

I would actually like to provide a solution, one that has proven itself.

An amendment to the Constitution that puts a cap on gov't spending and budget increases.

We have it here in Colorado and its called TABOR (Taxpayer Bill Of Rights). Almost every state got hurt in the recession, but Colorado got hurt less because of TABOR.

Here is a link to a local thinktank regarding TABOR

http://www.independenceinstitute.org...le.aspx?ID=998

It is the only way to curb the growth of the gov't--politicians will not do it. We, the people, have to set the limits and make them come to us and ask for more. That way they have to prove their case to us - or - no money.

*gets back down off of soapbox and puts it away for the night*

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

Kadath

Jesus Christ, people. I'm a big old firebrand around here and this argument is making me nervous. Stop bickering.

The solution of "The government should spend less" is a great idea and all, but even if we did manage to cap spending the rich should still pay more because they have more money to pay. Stuff has to get paid for -- welcome to the country. It's a group effort. We all have to give our strength to the nation. In this case, that means money. United we stand, unless it means we don't get all of our $4 million paycheck -- thank god most of our $2 million bonus isn't taxable!

__________________
it's quiet in here

cthulu23

So our huge deficit isn't the problem, it's government spending? Isn't one the consequence of the other?

Even Alan Greenspan noted that our current budgetary situation needed to change, although he said we should cut social security rather than roll back the tax cuts and decrease Bush's insane spending level. He never misses an opportunity to flex his objectivist muscles.

Even the National Review sees the inevitability of tax increases....How long are the poor and middle-class supposed to wait for the supply-side trickle down? They've seen their real wages shrink for the last twenty years.

Tman144

Thats because the poor who took over the country became the rich. I never said it was a success, but you said the poor have NEVER taken over a country. Also, you can add Cuba and Boliva and a number of other South American and African countries. The point I was making is that the poor do rise up and kill the rich every once in a while.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

wonderwench

If you start taxing revenue instead of profit, be prepared for businesses to fail. The job loss will not be due to outsourcing; it will be due to lack of positive cash flow generation.

wonderwench

Off topic: There is an interesting book, Poisons of the Past, in which the author theorizes that the French Revolution was largely the result of ergot poisoning. The French peasants ate a mainly rye based diet; ergot is a mould which is much like LSD and grows on rye.

wonderwench

Excellent posts, poco-vino! I hope you get on the soap box more often!

cthulu23

This is reminiscent of the theory that the Roman empire fell due to their heavy use of leaded glass. Like the ergot theory, it is interesting but it oversimplifies the argument and ignores many other historical factors.

wonderwench

Yes, it is an oversimplication. It is worthwhile to consider, however, the implications for societal development when a large portion of the population is "poisoned".

cthulu23

I think that the standard list of causes for the French Revolution sound much more plausible...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution#Causes
What exactly is the iomplication for the ergot theory...that revolution can only be born from irrational minds?

Anyway, we are starting to drift far away from the original conversation here.

wonderwench

I will address it in a new thread. It is a rather intersting theory.

poco_vino

Back on topic

*soapbox is in place*

In regards to Bartlett's column on raising taxes; he seems to be going to different directions at one time. I have read his previous articles and they do not really match up well with the one you posted.

1) Bartlett is a supply-sider, of sorts. I have never heard of a supply-side economist proposing raising taxes (doesn't mean it hasn't/won't happen, it just goes against the grain of the theory/Laffer Curve). The only time a supply-side economist will back raising taxes is when the marginal tax-rate is to the left of the equilibrium point. You loose your membership card in the Supply-Side Club if you propose taxes going to the right of equilibrium.

That said, his comments a) do not make much sense and b) do not match previous opinions of his.

Bruce Bartlet: "I think the first President Bush somehow convinced himself that tax increases were what caused the economy to grow in the 1980s and was disappointed when the economy didn't rebound immediately after he raised taxes."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20030530.shtml

Bruce's article just a few months prior, entitled "Get on with the tax cuts"

They will work and save less and put more effort into saving taxes. All other things being equal, a reduction in marginal tax rates with average rates unchanged will always lead to increased output.

Bottom line: While your comment was well-stated and correct, the source was ambiguous. Imagine if you will, two months from now, in a different thread, I propose raising taxes. Would you not call me a hypocrite?

The only way I could legitimately make that statement would be to follow it up with a lengthy discussion explaining why my views changed. I would have to hear Bruce's side to fully understand the dramatic change, unless he was trying to mean something different.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

poco_vino

....and yes, a deficit can be cause by increase gov't spending (which was half my point).

Another cause of a deficit is the economy rebounding from a recession. You can pretty much take it to the back that a deficit increase will follow a recovery from a recession.

Our current economy falls into both categories.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

poco_vino

*back* - bank,

sorry 'bout that..

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

poco_vino

In regards to:

That is not an accurate statement

Real Wage Chart

It hasn't been the greatest, but the record does not reflect your statement.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

cthulu23

Your chart only covers the last decade. I'd like to see a percentage figure from the late 70's (the start of a general wage decline) to now.

I'll try and find one after I get home.

poco_vino

From what I remember:

70's was in the positive
80's - not so good, but mostly in the + column
90's - very good, but not as good as the 70's
early 2000 - good
Lately - not as good, still mostly in the + column.

Do not take this as fact, I am regurgitating from memory.

I saw a few instances of decline, but I never saw an average decline, everything I saw was an average (albeit minimal) growth.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

poco_vino

"Real Wages 1947 - 2001"


Real Wage Chart - 1947-2001

I am not familiar with this group, so I cannot attest to its validity (accurate, skewed, etc)

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

Hwed

What people like Hillary Clinton don't understand is that the wealthy don't just sit on top of a huge pile of cash and cackle gleefully. They invest that cash in new business opportunities that create economic growth, more jobs, and a higher standard of living.

It sickens me, the condescending attitude that liberals have that makes them think THEY can make better use of YOUR money than YOU can.

Like Michael Moore, Hillary thinks that Americans are the "stupidest people in the world," but that she's somehow above the rest of us, and therefore fit to rule above us, telling us how to live our lives.

Hwed

Also, this tendency of trying to pass tax burden off on corporations strikes me as particularly short-sighted.

If you make corporations pay higher taxes, who do you think is really going to pay? Corporations are going to make their money whether you like it or not. If they pay higher taxes, they'll raise their prices to compensate. Who will be hurt most? The guy at the bottom.

Corporations aren't owned by Satan, believe it or not. They're owned in small bits and pieces by everyday people like you and me, assuming you're smart enough to save and invest some of your money instead of blowing it on depreciating consumer goods.

roachboy

i would be interested in this "theory" about the french revolution....please start another thread.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

forget about the above...sorry folks....its already up.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

If you look at the graph that accompanies the chart, you can see that real wages peaked about halfway through the measured period and have experienced a general decline since then. This fits with the numbers that I have read in many different sources.

Although the wages of median wage earners has nosed up occasionally, it has not kept pace with the spectacular gains made by the hightest wage earners.

poco_vino

I do not argue that at all. I did, however, argue your usage of the word "shrink". To me, the increase in wages should not involve the gov't, it is more personal responsibility.

My income has gone up over 100% in the last five years. I don't credit the gov't nor do I blame them when I am not making what I want. It is up to me.

However, we both have different ideologies regarding the matter....

How about we agree to disagree?

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

cthulu23

You paint a very unbalanced and inaccurate portrait here. Can we put aside the ridiculous steretypes of cackling socialists and stop putting words in mouths? There are enough straw men flying around this forum.

The tax burden has been increasingly distributed on the backs of the poor and the middle class. I guess its fine for the government to appropriate their money. Someone's got to pay, right? Why not make it those that are least able to afford it?

As I said earlier, if we take supply-side to it's logical extreme, than corporations and the rich should pay no money in taxes and normal wage earners should have stagnant incomes. Does that make sense to you?

wonderwench

cthulhu,

You are making a mistake in assuming that the population of the levels of income is static. People move up or down the income levels after various stages of their careers.

wonderwench

There is another option: descope the government to essential services and let the poor and working classes keep more of what they earn.

cthulu23

Although I am happy to agree to disagree, I feel that I have to point out that governement policies on employment, taxation and hundreds of other issues can have a profound effect on your pocketbook. "Liberals" aren't the only ones who have an interest in cinfluencing those policies, and I think our economic situation today is a reflection of twenty years of supply-side.

cthulu23

Sure, social mobility is a reality, but i would posit that most Americans tend to stay in the same income class. I'll see if I can dig up some numbers.

Edit: follow this link for a look at american social mobility (from Google Answers no less...how could they be wrong?)

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=291907

Of course, there is no easy answer to the question, but this quote says a little:

Of course, we can debate the real meaning of these numbers if we want to.

cthulu23

Always an interesting idea, but what services do we define as "essential" and what, exactly, do we cut?

poco_vino

That would probably be another thread entirely....and a messy one at that!

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

wonderwench

That topic defintely requires a separate thread, fully equipped with drop cloths.

poco_vino

That was funny wonderwrench, I actually chuckled.

__________________
"Life is a jest and all things show it
I thought so once, but now I know it"

John Gay

peanut vendor

I think the problem is, when you tax the rich too much, they can't afford another Hummer, whereas if you tax the poor too much they can't afford to put dinner on the table.

You just can't win, can you?

__________________
Choked on a pretzel!!

Hwed

Think beyond what the rich buy. Who makes what the rich buy? What jobs are created by their ability to invest disposable income in new business opportunities?

As much as liberals scream about supply-side economics, they work. We saw a huge economic boom after the Reagan tax cuts, and we're seeing another one now after the Bush tax cuts.

Liberals have all sorts of good intentions and good theories. The problem is that their theories and intentions can't hold up to the first touch of reality. They live in academic white towers and tell the world how it ought to be, but they don't seem to know the first thing about human nature.

My wife said it best during a conversation we had last night: "Don't they realize that nobody will work hard if they can't get rich?"

Today's liberalism is a philosophy with admittedly good intentions. They want everything to be "fair." Apparently, Momma never told them the harsh truth: "Life isn't fair."

There are going to be some rich folks, there are going to be some poor folks. In trying to work for the "common good" as Hillary puts it, you may provide some relief in the short term, but the true catalyst for economic growth lies in supply-side.

The Soviet Union tried to take something from its people for the common good. Try to find them on a recent map and see how well that turned out. Leftist "make everything fair" policy just can't compete with an economy where people have the chance of reaping vast rewards for hard work.

onetime2

Can those discussing Real Wages here please define the term and the components which are included and excluded in its calculation?

Additionally, please offer any thoughts on how/why it is possible that despite the alleged real decrease in wages people can afford higher and higher priced goods. After all aren't homes and cars significantly more expensive than they were in the 70's and yet we don't see too many people driving around in cars that are decades old or homes that are rotting to the ground?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Hwed

Before someone jumps on you about inflation, it's not so much a matter increasing cost for houses and cars (and other new things we enjoy these days, like internet and cell phones). The issue is value. Our homes and cars and gadgets are loaded down with things that seemed like science fiction twenty years ago, and today we take them for granted.

Heck, drive down a street in a poor neighborhood these days.... what do you see? A DSS dish on every roof and obese people talking on cell phones. We're hardly starving here. Our poor are pretty well off.

Kadath

I don't mean to snipe, but maybe you don't see too many. Try going to north Philly. You'll see plenty of decrepit row homes and those people who do have cars are driving rusting junkbuckets from the early 80s at best.

Compared to the poor in other nations, maybe. Our poor aren't living in shacks made out of sheet metal without running water or electricity. Things still aren't good for them.

__________________
it's quiet in here