Drip Drip......leaving California for Texas

[JustRalph]

Apparently Rck Perry didn't come home empty handed




http://www.shieldtactical.com/

From their Facebook page:

Shield Tactical is pleased to announce that we are moving our retail division to Shiner, Texas. We are pleased to have neighbors such as TBRC and the Spoetzl Brewery (home of Shiner Beer). Shipping etc will not be substantially affected.

Our training division will remain in CA until the legislature outlaws everything.

JWH

[mostpost]

Apparently Rck Perry didn't come home empty handed




http://www.shieldtactical.com/

From their Facebook page:

Shield Tactical is pleased to announce that we are moving our retail division to Shiner, Texas. We are pleased to have neighbors such as TBRC and the Spoetzl Brewery (home of Shiner Beer). Shipping etc will not be substantially affected.

Our training division will remain in CA until the legislature outlaws everything.

JWH
Ho hum, Just Ralph found another company that is moving to Texas. Including State Farm that makes two. Oh wait, State Farm isn't moving to Texas at all. So that makes one. :sleeping:

[Tom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/big-texas-welcome-to-californians.html

Where are the Californians going? For the most part, it’s to states with lower individual income taxes. Texas (http://topics.bloomberg.com/texas/), a state with no income tax, leads as a destination, with a net inflow from California of 185,122 people from 2004 to 2010, the IRS data say.

If California wants to reverse the out-migration, it should be lowering taxes, cutting spending and encouraging economic growth. That’s the Texas (http://topics.bloomberg.com/texas/) approach.


That pesky reality crops up again and spoils a good rant.:lol:

[classhandicapper]

This is exactly why the left wants to do everything at the federal level instead of the state level.

Freedom is diametrically opposed to the left's desire to impose their economic and social will on everyone else (all while complaining that that's what the right wants to do) .

It's a lot tougher decision to pack your bags, hand in your citizenship, and try to find a new country to go to that the left hasn't already destroyed than it is to find a new state to go to. That's why the right should be focusing on state's rights and letting the left do whatever the hell it wants in the blue states. As long as the right has an oasis of freedom here or there, that's all that is needed to keep everyone happy.

[NJ Stinks]

This is exactly why the left wants to do everything at the federal level instead of the state level.

Freedom is diametrically opposed to the left's desire to impose their economic and social will on everyone else (all while complaining that that's what the right wants to do) .

It's a lot tougher decision to pack your bags, hand in your citizenship, and try to find a new country to go to that the left hasn't already destroyed than it is to find a new state to go to. That's why the right should be focusing on state's rights and letting the left do whatever the hell it wants in the blue states. As long as the right has an oasis of freedom here or there, that's all that is needed to keep everyone happy.

OK, what "social will" are lefties imposing?

[Valuist]

OK, what "social will" are lefties imposing?

Umm, how about redistribution of wealth?

[classhandicapper]

OK, what "social will" are lefties imposing?

Well, wealth redistribution for things that many on the right do not approve of, think do harm instead of help, or don't want to participate in is a start.

But I also think things related to sexual preference, marriage, abortion, education, private property rights, who you associate with, who you hire, who gets preference in hiring etc... are local matters. Yet there are a lot of federal laws or attempts to create federal laws governing these things.

I happen to think the left is intrinsically correct on some of these things, but I don't think it's my place or anyone else's place to tell others how to live via federal law until such time almost everyone of sound mind is in agreement on the issue (which renders the law somewhat meaningless because all the states will be on board anyway)

The way I see it, what's going to make the population of San Francisco happy is completely different from what's going to make the people from some small town in Louisiana or in Salt Lake City happy. So live and let live.

[boxcar]

OK, what "social will" are lefties imposing?

ObaminationCare?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Well, wealth redistribution for things that many on the right do not approve of, think do harm instead of help, or don't want to participate in is a start.

But I also think things related to sexual preference, marriage, abortion, education, private property rights, who you associate with, who you hire, who gets preference in hiring etc... are local matters. Yet there are a lot of federal laws or attempts to create federal laws governing these things.

I happen to think the left is intrinsically correct on some of these things, but I don't think it's my place or anyone else's place to tell others how to live via federal law until such time almost everyone of sound mind is in agreement on the issue (which renders the law somewhat meaningless because all the states will be on board anyway)

The way I see it, what's going to make the population of San Francisco happy is completely different from what's going to make the people from some small town in Louisiana or in Salt Lake City happy. So live and let live.

I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.

Things like sexual preference/marriage and abortion are being restricted by the right - not the left. In fact, the left is saying it's up to the individual to decide while the right is imposing it's will. If you want 'freedom' relating to these issues, look left.

I agree that hiring preferences, private property rights, and education is mainly the left imposing it's will. Not sure what you mean by 'who you associate with'.

There are things that should be decided on the local level. Of course, figuring out what those things are is the tricky part.

[NJ Stinks]

ObaminationCare?

Boxcar

If it wasn't for the economic cost of healthcare in this country, nobody would have ever heard of Obamacare.


(Hope all is well, Boxcar. Long time no see. :) )

[fast4522]

I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.

Things like sexual preference/marriage and abortion are being restricted by the right - not the left. In fact, the left is saying it's up to the individual to decide while the right is imposing it's will. If you want 'freedom' relating to these issues, look left.

I agree that hiring preferences, private property rights, and education is mainly the left imposing it's will. Not sure what you mean by 'who you associate with'.

There are things that should be decided on the local level. Of course, figuring out what those things are is the tricky part.

And I think things are far from settled. mid term elections for any President of any party are always disastrous for the Presidents party, lets see how the next one goes.

Just the facts Stinks.

[JustRalph]

Ho hum, Just Ralph found another company that is moving to Texas. Including State Farm that makes two. Oh wait, State Farm isn't moving to Texas at all. So that makes one. :sleeping:

Ho hum indeed. 7k jobs so far planned for the area surrounding where I live. That's 7k people no longer paying taxes to Illinois. You do the math.

7k new potential customers for every business in the area. That's good for everybody. Including my wife and her business. And there are more coming. And those who don't want to move and are going on unemployment in Illinois, provide an opening here and a lead weight around the neck of Illinois. Which is double the fun. Carry on.......

[fast4522]

My wife's company is moving its corporate office to Dallas Texas, serious mojo going on in the lone star state.

[Robert Goren]

My wife's company is moving its corporate office to Dallas Texas, serious mojo going on in the lone star state. How your Spanish?

[badcompany]

I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.



Why, because you say so?

What's necessary is that the pie keeps getting bigger. That won't happen if more and more capital gets sucked out of the private sector and into the hands of pols, bureaucrats and technocrats.

Look at Europe. They added another layer of bureaucracy, the European Commission, and not surprisingly, it's a disaster.

Hopefully, this pic will be taken again in '16, but it will be Christy escorting Obama out of the White House.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/10/christie-obama-odd-couple.jpg

[fast4522]

How your Spanish?

No problemo, several buildings spread over 6 states and the dust will not settle for at least a year.

[NJ Stinks]

Why, because you say so?

What's necessary is that the pie keeps getting bigger. That won't happen if more and more capital gets sucked out of the private sector and into the hands of pols, bureaucrats and technocrats.

Look at Europe. They added another layer of bureaucracy, the European Commission, and not surprisingly, it's a disaster.

Hopefully, this pic will be taken again in '16, but it will be Christy escorting Obama out of the White House.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/10/christie-obama-odd-couple.jpg

I guess I could have added "in my opinion". Although I notice you didn't add IMO either.

[JustRalph]

How your Spanish?

It's not a problem. I rarely run into anybody speaking Spanish. But I'm practically a recluse. :lol:

Most of the native Spanish speakers do English pretty well here. But I don't ever talk to anybody in the building trades. That's where they say 47 % of construction jobs here are held by primarily Spanish speakers and most of them were recently determined to be illegal.

[badcompany]

I guess I could have added "in my opinion". Although I notice you didn't add IMO either.

That would be because it's not an opinion. Europe added another layer of government and the results are disasterous. I recall Libs going on about how we should be more like Europe. Not too much of that, now, and please don't blame the recession. That was 5 years ago. The excuse is long in the tooth.


http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/eu-says-euro-zone-to-shrink-in-2013-as-unemployment-rises-113022300040_1.html

Bloomberg February 23, 2013 Last Updated at 00:23 IST

EU says Euro zone to shrink in 2013 as unemployment rises

The Euro-area economy will shrink for a second year in 2013, driving unemployment higher as governments, consumers and companies curb spending, the European Commission said. The 17-nation Euro zone’s gross domestic product will fall 0.3 per cent this year, compared with a November prediction of 0.1 per cent growth, the Brussels-based commission forecast today. Unemployment will climb to 12.2 per cent, up from the previous estimate of 11.8 per cent and 11.4 per cent last year, it said.

[elysiantraveller]

I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.

They did.

That doesn't mean its the correct choice. Everyone in this country wants to "fix" America until its their turn to sacrifice... then they'll gladly pass the buck.

This Pew Poll Illustrates That Nicely.... (http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/)

To borrow from another thread we may have "Detroit" everywhere someday...

I believe we may be reaching the point here where Democracy isn't a solution anymore...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.

Hardly. The majority were for it because the majority doesn't EARN it.
And the majority are blithering idiots who believe anything the biased press tells them because most are products of a dem controlled education system and are far to stupid to think for themselves.

Dems rely on stupid, lazy people.

[NJ Stinks]

Hardly. The majority were for it because the majority doesn't EARN it.
And the majority are blithering idiots who believe anything the biased press tells them because most are products of a dem controlled education system and are far to stupid to think for themselves.

Dems rely on stupid, lazy people.

Your Signature line was never more appropriate. :jump:

[hcap]

Hardly. The majority were for it because the majority doesn't EARN it.
And the majority are blithering idiots who believe anything the biased press tells them because most are products of a dem controlled education system and are far to stupid to think for themselves.

Dems rely on stupid, lazy people.So you were educated in a republican school system? I guess you majored in the wit and wisdom of Joe McCarthy and definitely got an A in the art of the non sequitur

If you are an example of a republican ed-U-ca-shun, how come you and all your ed-U-ca-ted cohorts lost to a DEM-0-CRA-TICALY educated Harvard legal community organizing legal guy? If you think the election was bought by ObamaPhones, you have to remember the 1% were promised all sorts of payoffs by the repugs.

BTW, red states do poorer educationally across the board then blue :lol:

[delayjf]

Speaking of Detroit, here is an interesting article comparing Detroits downfall to California current situation

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/02/18/will-blue-state-california-become-detroit-on-the-pacific/

[ElKabong]

Maybe California should hire Bobby Deniro to do some commercials about how great it is doing business in California. That shit works great. No need to be business friendly, or sell your tax base out to the slow moving gov't workers.....

[badcompany]

Speaking of Detroit, here is an interesting article comparing Detroits downfall to California current situation

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/02/18/will-blue-state-california-become-detroit-on-the-pacific/

One of the best pieces I've read in a long time, and a confirmation of what I've said about the Environmentalist movement really being a Socialist movement in disguise. Its dogma is that Capitalisism hasn't failed because Capitalists "cheated" by exploiting the environment, as though you could feed, house, and supply energy to 300 million people without ever digging, drilling or blasting.

From the piece:

"The Central Valley, once the food basket of America, found its water diverted from farms to the ocean to “protect” the Delta Smelt. To protect this tiny fish, otherwise known as bait, water was diverted from farms, eliminating 37,000 jobs and leaving 300,000 acres fallow. Unemployment in the Central Valley is now 40 percent in places with farm workers relying on food stamps to feed their families."

[JustRalph]

BTW, red states do poorer educationally across the board then blue :lol:

And yet they still go broke?

[hcap]

And yet they still go broke?Many red are on Fed fiscal "welfare"

[elysiantraveller]

Many red are on Fed fiscal "welfare"

I've been thinking about the red/blue state maps and government spending. Did you know those charts count farm subsidies and defense spending?

While interesting stuff, no doubt, the inferences people make, like the one you just made, about that stuff is wholly misleading...

[hcap]

That is debatable. Getting back to Tom's education of Dems vs Retpugs

Hardly. The majority were for it because the majority doesn't EARN it.
And the majority are blithering idiots who believe anything the biased press tells them because most are products of a dem controlled education system and are far to stupid to think for themselves.

Dems rely on stupid, lazy people.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/

http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/conservative3.jpg

Conservative states are also less well-educated than liberal ones. The correlation between conservative affiliation and human capital (that is, the percent of adults who have graduated college) is substantially negative (-.53).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Florida_WorkingClass_3-29.jpg

States with more conservatives are considerably poorer than those with more liberals. Conservative political affiliation is highly negatively correlated with income ( -.65) and even more so with hourly earnings (-.79). Columbia University's Andrew Gelman's influential book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State sheds light on this phenomenon. While rich voters trend Republican, Gelman and his colleagues found, rich states trend Democratic.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/conservative6.jpg

And a breakdown....

States by percentage of adults 25-34 with at least a college degree, as of 2010
Top 10:

MA 54.4
ND 50.8
MN 49.8
NY 49.6
NH 46.0
CA 45.9
IA 45.5
MD 45.5
VT 44.5
PA 43.9

and the bottom 10:

ID 32.7
TX 32.2
MS 32.1
AL 31.5
OK 30.8
LA 30.3
WV 24.5
NM 28.7
AR 28.6
NV 28.4

Percentage of Households in poverty (US is 12.6% households)
Least:
NH 5.6
NJ 6.8
VT 7.6
MN 8.1
HI 8.6
DE 9.2
UT 9.2
VA 9.2
CT 9.2
NE 9.5


Bottom 10
SC 15.0
AZ 15.2
WV 15.4
OK 15.6
AR 15.9
TX 16.2
AL 16.7
NM 17.9
LA 18.3
MS 20.1

[Tom]

What is the metric being measured, hcap?
Without specifics, your graphs, as always, are a waste of time.

[hcap]

Wrong again! Go to the ATLANTIC article I linked. Plenty of metrics. Certainly much better supported than your blanket statement with absolutely no evidence, link, or studies.

But hey what else is new? :cool:

[delayjf]

Well, according to your buddies at the Huffington Post, CA Leads the nation with the highest poverty rate based on 2010 census data. Yet they don't show up in any of the stats you post...Interesting :confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html

[Tom]

Look at the election results.
We are over run with blithering idiots.

[NJ Stinks]

Look at the election results.
We are over run with blithering idiots.

You define a sore loser. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I define reality.
To think Obama is what the country needs is, IMHO, mental illness.

[elysiantraveller]

Well, according to your buddies at the Huffington Post, CA Leads the nation with the highest poverty rate based on 2010 census data. Yet they don't show up in any of the stats you post...Interesting :confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html

California also leads the nation with % of population on Medicaid with 30%... New York leads medicaid spending per capita (27% of people on medicaid)...

But with all these blue state red state graphs I guess I don't know what to believe anymore... :confused:

This is what happens when you create data to further an agenda.

[hcap]

Ok, the Atlantic article does not use the latest adjustment for poverty measurements, but..........
Hardly. The majority were for it because the majority doesn't EARN it.
And the majority are blithering idiots who believe anything the biased press tells them because most are products of a dem controlled education system and are far to stupid to think for themselves.

Dems rely on stupid, lazy people.Educational levels do not change because of the new poverty guidelines

[Tom]

Educational levels do not change because of the new poverty guidelines

They change when the liberal controlled schools fail to teach them and instead force political beliefs on the kids. Those kids grow up stupid and vote for democrats because the media tells to to.

How many people - honestly - do think actually took what the pig Candy Crowley interjected in the debate, even though it was an outright lie?

This is the strategy of he left - dumb it down. Idiots love democrats.

[classhandicapper]

I think the issue 'wealth distribution' was settled again in the last election. The majority is for it because it is necessary in a civilized society.

Things like sexual preference/marriage and abortion are being restricted by the right - not the left. In fact, the left is saying it's up to the individual to decide while the right is imposing it's will. If you want 'freedom' relating to these issues, look left.

I agree that hiring preferences, private property rights, and education is mainly the left imposing it's will. Not sure what you mean by 'who you associate with'.

There are things that should be decided on the local level. Of course, figuring out what those things are is the tricky part.

The wealth distribution issue works in favor of the left because many people are willing to vote for politicians that are willing to confiscate the wealth of others and transfer it to themselves. Given that we import millions of people like that every year and others have been taxed and inflated into the same position, the left now has the upper hand. That doesn't make it right, moral, or more free.

"Free" means each person gets to decide for themselves what they want to do with their money and how they might want to benefit society from its use. That might mean giving money to a charity that's dear to them, building a new factory to employ 100 new people, paying taxes for infrastructure, etc... The more local those decsions are made the freer people are to locate themselves with others that share their views.

Free means people being allowed to decide for themselves whether things like gay marriage, abortion, etc.. are moral or not and then creating laws that reflect their own beliefs. So if people on San Francisco believe one thing they can create laws to reflect those beliefs and people in Utah or down south can do something else. Free does not mean people in San Francisco get to decide what everyone else should do OR vice versa.

[classhandicapper]

That is debatable. Getting back to Tom's education of Dems vs Retpugs


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/

http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/conservative3.jpg

Conservative states are also less well-educated than liberal ones. The correlation between conservative affiliation and human capital (that is, the percent of adults who have graduated college) is substantially negative (-.53).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Florida_WorkingClass_3-29.jpg

States with more conservatives are considerably poorer than those with more liberals. Conservative political affiliation is highly negatively correlated with income ( -.65) and even more so with hourly earnings (-.79). Columbia University's Andrew Gelman's influential book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State sheds light on this phenomenon. While rich voters trend Republican, Gelman and his colleagues found, rich states trend Democratic.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/conservative6.jpg

And a breakdown....

States by percentage of adults 25-34 with at least a college degree, as of 2010
Top 10:

MA 54.4
ND 50.8
MN 49.8
NY 49.6
NH 46.0
CA 45.9
IA 45.5
MD 45.5
VT 44.5
PA 43.9

and the bottom 10:

ID 32.7
TX 32.2
MS 32.1
AL 31.5
OK 30.8
LA 30.3
WV 24.5
NM 28.7
AR 28.6
NV 28.4

Percentage of Households in poverty (US is 12.6% households)
Least:
NH 5.6
NJ 6.8
VT 7.6
MN 8.1
HI 8.6
DE 9.2
UT 9.2
VA 9.2
CT 9.2
NE 9.5


Bottom 10
SC 15.0
AZ 15.2
WV 15.4
OK 15.6
AR 15.9
TX 16.2
AL 16.7
NM 17.9
LA 18.3
MS 20.1

I would argue that education in this country is actually indoctrination, but that's another matter.

For example, I didn't learn anything about the real world of investing and economics until I discounted everything I was taught in college in favor of the education I was getting from reading articles, essays, and books written by the Austrian school economists that are more or less back balled by the mainstream.

So of course many educated people are leftist. They've been taught a lot of idealistic nonsense and never had reason to reeducate like I did. Once you go out into the real world of investing and business (whether you've been educated or not), views often change because you find that the real world does not work anything like the idealistic one you might favor.

[NJ Stinks]

The wealth distribution issue works in favor of the left because many people are willing to vote for politicians that are willing to confiscate the wealth of others and transfer it to themselves. Given that we import millions of people like that every year and others have been taxed and inflated into the same position, the left now has the upper hand. That doesn't make it right, moral, or more free.

"Free" means each person gets to decide for themselves what they want to do with their money and how they might want to benefit society from its use. That might mean giving money to a charity that's dear to them, building a new factory to employ 100 new people, paying taxes for infrastructure, etc... The more local those decsions are made the freer people are to locate themselves with others that share their views.

Free means people being allowed to decide for themselves whether things like gay marriage, abortion, etc.. are moral or not and then creating laws that reflect their own beliefs. So if people on San Francisco believe one thing they can create laws to reflect those beliefs and people in Utah or down south can do something else. Free does not mean people in San Francisco get to decide what everyone else should do OR vice versa.

I think you are full of manure. In the 1970's (when we mostly did pay our bills as a country), the highest federal tax rate was 70%. Today - when we can't pay for squat - the highest federal tax rate is 35%. That you even fall for the BS that we "confiscate the wealth of others" - especially on the federal level - shows me that you have fallen for BS yourself. In short, paying our country's bills is not a moral issue or a free choice.

Your second paragraph reads like a burnt out hippy who is looking for a Utopia that cannot exist in the real world.

As for your last paragraph, free means having a choice. Doesn't matter if one lives in SF or Salt Lake City, the individual has a choice.

[elysiantraveller]

I think you are full of manure. In the 1970's (when we mostly did pay our bills as a country), the highest federal tax rate was 70%. Today - when we can't pay for squat - the highest federal tax rate is 35%. That you even fall for the BS that we "confiscate the wealth of others" - especially on the federal level - shows me that you have fallen for BS yourself. In short, paying our country's bills is not a moral issue or a free choice.

Absolute nonsense...

The reason we can't pay our bills has nothing to do with the top tax rate in this country. Now or in 1970. But its a great liberal talking point you and others on here cling to. We could tax the top 2% all of their income and it wouldn't make a dent into paying our bills.

The problem we have in this country is the damn near 50% of people that don't contribute anything.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8FssT4Qs1Zk/UFiD_-Jk4nI/AAAAAAAAAgA/9xcf_ddRcKw/s320/Percent+not+paying+taxes.gif

That's the problem.

[NJ Stinks]

Give me the link to that graph, Eli.

Thanks.

[elysiantraveller]

Its pretty easily found.

Heritage (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-2010-index-of-dependence-on-government)

Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/article/number-americans-paying-zero-federal-income-tax-grows-434-million)

[Tom]

Good points Class, most righties at some point take over their education and salvage what he lib-based school system left. I hear 40,000 teachers may lose their jobs over sequestration. There is hope for our kids. :D

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=elysiantraveller]Absolute nonsense...

The reason we can't pay our bills has nothing to do with the top tax rate in this country. Now or in 1970. But its a great liberal talking point you and others on here cling to. We could tax the top 2% all of their income and it wouldn't make a dent into paying our bills.
This is one of the dumber things you could say. If we were collecting five times as much as we are now from the people whose make nearly fifty % of our annual income, it would have to make a dent into paying our bills. That does not mean it would be a good idea, as it would be unsustainable in the long run.

What we are trying to do now is correct a problem which began when Reagan cut taxes dramatically in the 1980s. After that, every Republican politician made it his goal to cut taxes even more dramatically. If the tax rate was one percent, there would be Republicans crying about the onerous tax burden.

We are in the situation we are in now, because for the last 30 years we did not maintain a reasonable tax burden. We fell for the tripe that lower taxes mean more revenue. We believed that if we reduced taxes for businesses they would use that money to expand their business and hire more worker. Pretend all you want that is what happened. You are delusional.

[elysiantraveller]

...

:confused:

What in the hell are you talking about?

I've made my point very clear on here several times... either A) the people in this country who don't pay taxes must start doing so or B) we need to cut benefits...

The graph I posted illustrated exactly why we are having the problems in this country we are having and it has absolutely nothing to do with the rate of the top tax bracket.

It has to do with the fact almost half of all American's contribute nothing to the system.

That's my stance cut and/or tax... your's is class warfare.

You guys are a trip with your pseudo-reactionary liberalism talking about the "good old days" of high rates... fine... lets also talk about the fact basically 50 MILLION more people were paying taxes back then as well...

Sound fair?

[badcompany]

The problem with those high rates is that the rich usually don't pay them. Just ask Keith Richards:


Keith Richards: “We left England because we’d be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out.” (http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/keith-richards-we-left-england)

Damon W. Root (http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root/all)|Nov. 1, 2010 12:54 pm

Keith Richards talks tax policy (http://www.you.com.au/news/1253.htm) withRolling Stone:

The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all.”

[mostpost]

The problem we have in this country is the damn near 50% of people that don't contribute anything.
First of all they do contribute something. Anyone who buys anything contributes sales tax. Anyone who owns a car contributes licence fees and gas taxes. Anyone who uses public transportation contributes to that. Everyone contributes property taxes, whether directly or as part of their rent. Most of that 50% are working poor. They contribute to society by making the products you buy and providing the services you use.

As to the federal income taxes you claim they do not pay; they are doing nothing illegal. The amount of income tax we pay is determined by Federal law. If Federal law ways we pay certain percentages based on our income then that is what we pay.

Let's take a family of four,married filing jointly, which earned $20,000 in 2012.
The tax code says they can take a standard deduction of $7,400, plus four exemptions of $3,400 each. Total deductions and exemptions of $21,000, which means they have not tax liability. All perfectly legal.

Are you suggesting we do away with deductions and exemptions and tax everyone on what they actually earn? Because if we do, the family above would pay $2,000 a year in taxes.

But if we eliminate those deductions and exemptions for those folks, we have to eliminate them for you too. Just saying you earn $69,000 a year, (No idea if that is close) your tax bill would be $3,300 higher than under the current system.

You're going to say that the problem is the EIC or the child care credit. And I say that for every credit that benefits the poor, there are credits that benefit the well to do and they benefit them to a much greater degree. So I say, if you want to eliminate the EIC, let's eliminate the depreciation allowance. If you want to eliminate the child care credit, let's eliminate tax breaks for moving your business to another state or country.

[JustRalph]

Funny how you are perfectly fine with "your team" not paying any taxes because it's "legal"

Cayman Islands accounts are legal too

Capital gains paying 15% tax rates are "legal"

Yet during the election you screamed about this and much more.

You love to talk about sales tax and gas taxes and real estate taxes, yet they total up to babyshit compared to the other side of the spectrum.

You are not carrying your weight. Half the peope in the country cannot ride in the wagon for free. It's basic math.

[mostpost]

The problem with those high rates is that the rich usually don't pay them. Just ask Keith Richards:


Keith Richards: “We left England because we’d be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out.” (http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/keith-richards-we-left-england)

Damon W. Root (http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root/all)|Nov. 1, 2010 12:54 pm

Keith Richards talks tax policy (http://www.you.com.au/news/1253.htm) withRolling Stone:

The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all.”


You are actually using Keith Richards to convince us of the evils of taxation. :rolleyes:
Richards says they would be paying 98 cents on the dollar and you do not even question that. In England the top tax rate on income over 150,000 pounds is 50%-not 98%. Furthermore, if the Stones had any brains, they would have long ago incorporated and the top rate on corporations is 24% over 1.5M.

[NJ Stinks]

You guys are a trip with your pseudo-reactionary liberalism talking about the "good old days" of high rates... fine... lets also talk about the fact basically 50 MILLION more people were paying taxes back then as well...

Sound fair?

I haven't had to time to check out those links, Ely, but I will.

But I'll say this now. There is no meaningful tax revenue to collect from those "50 MILLION" you are so concerned about. Take out those living on their SS; those single people having taxable income of $9,750 or less; those married people having taxable income of $19,500 or less; and unemployed people and that 50M isn't such a big number.

Look at it this way. If you are a thief, are you going to break into a house on the other side of the tracks or are you going uptown?

I'm sure somebody will enjoy that example! :p

[elysiantraveller]

...

Since JR already pointed out your moral relativism and the fact it had nothing to do with what I said I'm just going to take some time to share some more facts from your "good old days."

Entitlement Spending as a % of Total Budget:
1970: 39%
2012: 62%

Labor Force Participation:
1970: 60.5%
2012: 63.5%

% With Zero Federal Income Tax Liability:
1970: 20%
2011: 47%

Hmm... what about these numbers doesn't make sense Mosty?

As to your moral relativism whats your plan? Cut? Tax? Or some new-found measure of "fairness?"

[NJ Stinks]

Since JR already pointed out your moral relativism and the fact it had nothing to do with what I said I'm just going to take some time to share some more facts from your "good old days."

Entitlement Spending as a % of Total Budget:
1970: 39%
2012: 62%


People live a lot longer than they did in 1970. So Medicare costs are a lot higher. I recommend single payer to cut healthcare costs.

[elysiantraveller]

I haven't had to time to check out those links, Ely, but I will.

But I'll say this now. There is no meaningful tax revenue to collect from those "50 MILLION" you are so concerned about. Take out those living on their SS; those single people having taxable income of $9,750 or less; those married people having taxable income of $19,500 or less; and unemployed people and that 50M isn't such a big number.

Look at it this way. If you are a thief, are you going to break into a house on the other side of the tracks or are you going uptown?

I'm sure somebody will enjoy that example! :p

So there weren't poor people in 1970?

That's fine.

If you can't take money from them take away benefits. Tax or cut or both...

Its this thing called shared sacrifice for the greater good... I'm pretty sure its dead now. ;)

[elysiantraveller]

People live a lot longer than they did in 1970. So Medicare costs are a lot higher.

I recommend raising eligibility age. ;)

[classhandicapper]

I think you are full of manure. In the 1970's (when we mostly did pay our bills as a country), the highest federal tax rate was 70%. Today - when we can't pay for squat - the highest federal tax rate is 35%. That you even fall for the BS that we "confiscate the wealth of others" - especially on the federal level - shows me that you have fallen for BS yourself. In short, paying our country's bills is not a moral issue or a free choice.

Your second paragraph reads like a burnt out hippy who is looking for a Utopia that cannot exist in the real world.

As for your last paragraph, free means having a choice. Doesn't matter if one lives in SF or Salt Lake City, the individual has a choice.

This is more or less left wing clap trap.

When tax rates were much higher, there were also many more and much larger tax breaks. So the "effective tax rate" was MUCH lower than the stated tax rate.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher now than it has ever been in more normalized times (non WW2 etc...) That's the primary reason we have large deficits for which the left wants to raise taxes further. There are other secondary reasons, but the major issue is spending and the growth of spending.

"Free" does not always mean having a choice.

I don't have a choice to murder the SOB that keeps littering in front of my house because as a society we have all deemed murder to be immoral/criminal.

As a society we haven't concluded anything about abortion, gay marriage, and many other issues. People feel very strongly (in fact passionately) on both sides of the debate.

I don't think it's very healthy to have a society that is basically "gang rule" on a lot of issues that people are very passionate about. If you move some of these social issues down to the state level, you will be FREE to locate where other people share your values. These issues then cease to be a problem UNLESS YOU ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WANTS TO IMPOSE YOUR OWN WILL/VALUES ON OTHERS.

There are people like that on both sides of the spectrum on different issues, but I think the left is more guilty of preventing people on the right of pursuing the society they want than the other way around.

[badcompany]

Not suprisingly, you missed the point of the post which is that if you tax the wealthy enough, they'll eventually pick up and leave.

. Furthermore, if the Stones had any brains, they would have long ago incorporated and the top rate on corporations is 24% over 1.5M.

Yes, because you're so much more successful that Mick Jaggar.:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

So there weren't poor people in 1970?

That's fine.

If you can't take money from them take away benefits. Tax or cut or both...

Its this thing called shared sacrifice for the greater good... I'm pretty sure its dead now. ;)

I believe there were a lot more good jobs percentage-wise in 1970 than there are now. Loss of good manufacturing jobs over the years is one area. Computers eliminating good jobs is another. Lack of unions is another reason.

Your thoughts about "shared sacrifice" are not without merit. The problem, of course, is what is fair for all.

[NJ Stinks]

I recommend raising eligibility age. ;)

I'm OK with that. I am also OK with people paying more for Medicare based on their wealth. And I definitely for an 85 year old paying more for elective surgery. For example, you must have a much larger co-pay for a hip replacement at 85 because you have a much greater chance of getting a heart attack because of the surgery. Not to mention the fact that you probably will not be around that long to use the hip replacement.

Put another way, would somebody in their 80's spend their life savings on elective surgery? I don't think so. Most would prefer to leave their accumulated wealth to their beneficiaries. If that is the case, why shoud Medicare be expected to pick up the entire tab for something you wouldn't think of paying for part of yourself?

The bottom line is the older you are, the bigger the co-pay on elective surgery. Here's a list of items included under the term " elective surgery":
______________________________

There are literally hundreds of elective surgeries spanning all the systems of the body in modern medical practice. Several major categories of common elective procedures include:

Plastic surgery. Cosmetic or reconstructive surgery that improves appearance and in some cases, physical function.
Refractive (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Refraction.html) surgery. Laser surgery for vision correction.
Gynecological surgery. Either medically necessary or optional surgery (e.g., hysterectomy (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Fi-La/Hysterectomy.html) , tubal ligation (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Tubal-Ligation.html) ).
Exploratory or diagnostic surgery. Surgery to determine the origin and extent of a medical problem, or to biopsy tissue samples.
Cardiovascular surgery. Non-emergency procedures to improve blood flow or heart function, such as angioplasty (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Angioplasty.html) or the implantation of a pacemaker.
Musculoskeletal system surgery. Orthopedic (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Orthopedic_surgery.html) surgical procedures, such as hip replacement (http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Fi-La/Hip-Replacement.html) and ACL reconstruction.
Read more: http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Ce-Fi/Elective-Surgery.html#ixzz2Lw0LQkkx

[mostpost]

This is more or less left wing clap trap.

When tax rates were much higher, there were also many more and much larger tax breaks. So the "effective tax rate" was MUCH lower than the stated tax rate.
You neglect to mention that many of those tax breaks were for reinvesting in and growing your business. People were rewarded for hiring new workers. While the "effective tax rate" was lower than the stated tax rate it was still higher than the effective tax rate now. And nowadays one does not have to do anything to receive that lower effective rate.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher now than it has ever been in more normalized times (non WW2 etc...) That's the primary reason we have large deficits for which the left wants to raise taxes further. There are other secondary reasons, but the major issue is spending and the growth of spending.
Odd that official government figures do not agree with that assessment.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
The chart on pages 24 and 25 seems to indicate that spending as a % of GDP was always above 20% from 1970 to the mid nineties, with a high of 23.5% under Ronnie. It also seems to indicate that spending as a percentage of GDP was below 20% from 2010 on. But those are just official government figures. :rolleyes:

"Free" does not always mean having a choice.

I don't have a choice to murder the SOB that keeps littering in front of my house because as a society we have all deemed murder to be immoral/criminal.

As a society we haven't concluded anything about abortion, gay marriage, and many other issues. People feel very strongly (in fact passionately) on both sides of the debate.

I don't think it's very healthy to have a society that is basically "gang rule" on a lot of issues that people are very passionate about. If you move some of these social issues down to the state level, you will be FREE to locate where other people share your values. These issues then cease to be a problem UNLESS YOU ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WANTS TO IMPOSE YOUR OWN WILL/VALUES ON OTHERS.
You gotta hate that darn "Gang rule", known to some folks as democracy. The idea of being able to move to a state where others share your views is ludicrous. First of all it is impossible for everyone to agree on everything. Secondly, the country we live in is called the United States of America. It is not called the Casually Together States of America, nor the Do What We Say If You Feel Like It States of America. When there is a Federal Law on a subject, that is the law everywhere. When there is a subject that effects all the people there should be a federal law.

There are people like that on both sides of the spectrum on different issues, but I think the left is more guilty of preventing people on the right of pursuing the society they want than the other way around.
You always talk about individual rights, yet here you are advocating a society which would deny individual rights. Liberals support abortion rights, but no liberal would force your wife to have an abortion. Liberals support gay marriage, but no liberal would say classhandicapper has to marry a man.

On the other hand you conservatives are bent on creating a society where individual behavior will be dictated by rules you set up without regard to individual freedoms.

[elysiantraveller]

We started talking about the highest tax rates and since abandoning that point we've now moved on to Unions, Globalism, and Computers...

In the 1970's (when we mostly did pay our bills as a country), the highest federal tax rate was 70%. Today - when we can't pay for squat - the highest federal tax rate is 35%. That you even fall for the BS that we "confiscate the wealth of others" - especially on the federal level - shows me that you have fallen for BS yourself. In short, paying our country's bills is not a moral issue or a free choice.

Apparently it is...

Your thoughts about "shared sacrifice" are not without merit. The problem, of course, is what is fair for all.

;)

[mostpost]

Not suprisingly, you missed the point of the post which is that if you tax the wealthy enough, they'll eventually pick up and leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
. Furthermore, if the Stones had any brains, they would have long ago incorporated and the top rate on corporations is 24% over 1.5M.


Yes, because you're so much more successful that Mick Jaggar.
I did not miss the point of the post, I disagreed with it. I also pointed out that if you are going to complain about the amount you are taxed, at least be honest enough to use an accurate tax rate to make your complaint.

I am perfectly content with my success in life, which has nothing to do with my statement you quoted above.

[NJ Stinks]

This is more or less left wing clap trap.

When tax rates were much higher, there were also many more and much larger tax breaks. So the "effective tax rate" was MUCH lower than the stated tax rate.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher now than it has ever been in more normalized times (non WW2 etc...) That's the primary reason we have large deficits for which the left wants to raise taxes further. There are other secondary reasons, but the major issue is spending and the growth of spending.



Clap trap? I suggest that you read the article below. Then come back and tell me why you believe the article is just more clap trap.
__________________________________

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are

As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7), the conversation has obviously turned to taxes.

Specifically, what should be done with them.

Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxeshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#), and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes.

But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense.

Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people.

Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2LwATpVNM

[NJ Stinks]

We started talking about the highest tax rates and since abandoning that point we've now moved on to Unions, Globalism, and Computers...





You asked: "So there weren't poor people in 1970?"

I wasn't abandoning/changing the subject. I responding to why there were less poor people in 1970.

[elysiantraveller]

You asked: "So there weren't poor people in 1970?"

I wasn't abandoning/changing the subject. I responding to why there were less poor people in 1970.

The poverty rate doesn't support that...

1970: 13%
2012: 15%

That explains roughly 5-7 million of those people out of 50.

Keep trying... or talk about fairness some more since the data can't make your ideology and this statement:

"In short, paying our country's bills is not a moral issue or a free choice."

Play nice with eachother.

[BlueShoe]

This is the strategy of he left - dumb it down. Idiots love democrats.
Like that old saying goes, "If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on the support of Paul." This is the way the Left and the Democratic Party plays it. Create ever more Pauls than Peters and stick it to the Peters that are left. Give them entitlements and benefits they did not not earn and promise them more of the same. The recent election goes to show the wisdom of Churchill's quotation about the intelligence, or rather the lack of same, of the average voter. Just how the hell any person with an IQ higher than their waistline could have voted for Obama or any far left Democrat shall forever remain a mystery to myself until the end of my days. :confused:

[Tom]

1970: 13%
2012: 15%

The result of 42 years of democrat entitlements.
The War on Poverty is lost.

Hint - dem policies do not work.
If we were to use hcap's global warming model, we would have 20% poverty in 10 years! :D

[badcompany]

I believe there were a lot more good jobs percentage-wise in 1970 than there are now. Loss of good manufacturing jobs over the years is one area.

Michael Barone blew up this load of crap in this piece:

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/longing_for_jobs_we_used_to_hate_OZZwrIMrEfWhGCtbA 4E7IM (http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/longing_for_jobs_we_used_to_hate_OZZwrIMrEfWhGCtbA 4E7IM)

Longing for jobs we used to hate
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen liberal commentators look back with nostalgia to the days when a young man fresh out of high school or military service could get a well-paying job on an assembly line at a unionized auto factory that could carry him to a comfortable retirement.

As it happens, I grew up in Detroit and for a time lived next door to factory workers, so I know something that has eluded the liberal nostalgiacs — which is that people hated those jobs. Assembly-line work was boring and repetitive.




Computers eliminating good jobs is another.


Here's an idea: Why don't we rip the computers out of ATMs, leave the shells intact and put humans in them. Think about all the jobs you'd create: 3 shifts a day in every ATM in the country.

Here's another idea. Get rid of Garbage Trucks and dispose of trash with shopping carts. Think of how many more people you could hire.

While we're at it, lets get rid of this forum, then Mike could hire messengers to deliver our posts to each other.:bang: :bang:

[classhandicapper]

You always talk about individual rights, yet here you are advocating a society which would deny individual rights. Liberals support abortion rights, but no liberal would force your wife to have an abortion. Liberals support gay marriage, but no liberal would say classhandicapper has to marry a man.

On the other hand you conservatives are bent on creating a society where individual behavior will be dictated by rules you set up without regard to individual freedoms.

First, I am not a conservative.

I believe that unless there is near unanimous agreement that something should be illegal, there should be no law at the federal level at all.

I don't think conservatives should be allowed to make abortion, gay marriage, poker, smoking pot, selling/watching porn, etc... illegal at the federal level. There is nowhere near a unanimous view on those things.

However, I think part of being free is related to property rights, freedom of association etc...

So I also don't think it's appropriate for someone to create a federal law that says everyone in every state must have the freedom to play poker, smoke pot, have gay marriage, have an abortion, watch and sell porn etc..

If there are people out there in a specific state (or even city) that think that kind of behavior is sinful, offensive, immoral, damaging to society, etc... and want to live in a place were they and their children won't be corrupted or impacted by those things, they should be free to do so. Those that disagree with them, are then free to leave to move to another state.

That arrangement maximizes freedom without the political conflict we see on passionate issues when opinions are split and things are settled at the federal level.

You are gay and want to get married? no problemo

You want to smoke pot while playing poker and watching porn? no problemo

You think those folks are sinners that are destroying society? no problemo

[classhandicapper]

Clap trap? I suggest that you read the article below. Then come back and tell me why you believe the article is just more clap trap.
__________________________________

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are

As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7), the conversation has obviously turned to taxes.

Specifically, what should be done with them.

Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxeshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#), and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes.

But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense.

Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people.

Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2LwATpVNM

All these articles are clap trap written by people with a political agenda and/or that don't know what they are talking about.

All you have to do is look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP and you'll see that it's higher now than it was for an extended period of time in our history. It's set to go even higher in the years to come.

Yes, tax rates used to be massively higher, but with the more generous deductions and write-offs, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were fairy stable for a very long time. They are a tad lower now, but even if you raised them back to the recent historical level, it doesn't solve the current deficit and ESPECIALLY doesn't solve the future growth rate of spending.

[NJ Stinks]

Michael Barone blew up this load of crap in this piece:

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/longing_for_jobs_we_used_to_hate_OZZwrIMrEfWhGCtbA 4E7IM (http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/longing_for_jobs_we_used_to_hate_OZZwrIMrEfWhGCtbA 4E7IM)

Longing for jobs we used to hate
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen liberal commentators look back with nostalgia to the days when a young man fresh out of high school or military service could get a well-paying job on an assembly line at a unionized auto factory that could carry him to a comfortable retirement.

As it happens, I grew up in Detroit and for a time lived next door to factory workers, so I know something that has eluded the liberal nostalgiacs — which is that people hated those jobs. Assembly-line work was boring and repetitive.







Here's an idea: Why don't we rip the computers out of ATMs, leave the shells intact and put humans in them. Think about all the jobs you'd create: 3 shifts a day in every ATM in the country.

Here's another idea. Get rid of Garbage Trucks and dispose of trash with shopping carts. Think of how many more people you could hire.

While we're at it, lets get rid of this forum, then Mike could hire messengers to deliver our posts to each other.:bang: :bang:

Michael Barone lived near somebody who hated his job so that's a deal changer? :lol: Is a job only good because you like it? Or is good pay and good benefits a big part of having a good job?

Your point about computers is lost on me. I said computers have cost people good jobs in the last 40 years. (Post #60 in this thread.) Don't know how you can dispute that but it appears that you just did.

[NJ Stinks]

First, I am not a conservative.

I believe that unless there is near unanimous agreement that something should be illegal, there should be no law at the federal level at all.



How does slavery fit into that? Or Civil Rights? Should we still be throwing up our hands and saying: "Oh well. If the people of South Carolina feel that strongly about it, too bad for the slaves and other free blacks in that state. Maybe someday you can find a way to escape someday and move up north."

What say ye, ClassH?

[mostpost]

All these articles are clap trap written by people with a political agenda and/or that don't know what they are talking about.

All you have to do is look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP and you'll see that it's higher now than it was for an extended period of time in our history. It's set to go even higher in the years to come.

Yes, tax rates used to be massively higher, but with the more generous deductions and write-offs, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were fairy stable for a very long time. They are a tad lower now, but even if you raised them back to the recent historical level, it doesn't solve the current deficit and ESPECIALLY doesn't solve the future growth rate of spending.
There is a person here who does not know what he is talking about and it is you.
To begin, spending as a percentage of GDP is not higher than ever. I provided the following link above. Apparently you missed it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...09/pdf/hist.pdf
Pages 24 and 25 contain the official chart on spending as a percentage of GDP. It shows that spending was consistently above the 20% mark from the seventies to the mid nineties, and below 20% the last few years. These are official figures, not some made up figures from some righty think tank.

You agree that tax rates were much higher in the 50's, 60's 70's etc, but say that was balanced out by more generous write offs and deductions. Perhaps so, but therein lies the reason you and your ilk are wrong. In the first place the effective tax rate-the tax you pay after all deductions, exemptions etc-was higher in 1960 than it is now. Not only that, but the more you made, the greater the difference.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

A part of the above article compares effective tax rates across the decades from 1960 to 2004. It divides the top one percent into four groups and here is what it says.
For those in the top 1% to 0.5%:
In 1960 they paid 34% of their income in taxes.
In 2004 it was 31.3%

0.1% to 0.5%
1960=41.4%
2004=33%

0.01 to 0.1
1960=55.3%
2004=34.1%

top 0.01%
1960=71.4%
2004=34.7%

In each of those categories the taxpayer was paying a higher rate in 1960 than he is paying now. In the case of the top one one hundredth of one percent, the rate was more than double.

But there is a more important factor to consider. That is why were the effective rates in 1960 so much lower than the actual rate. (91%) As you say it was because there were many deductions and write offs. Those deductions and write offs were for expanding your business and hiring more workers. In those days you needed to contribute to the growth of the economy in order to lower your tax rate. Now you need to do nothing to receive lower rates. Now, for the very richest-the top three categories-the actual tax rate is lower than the effective rate in 1960.

By the way, you say above that you are not a conservative. You talk like a conservative, you walk like a conservative, you smell like a conservative. If not a conservative, what? A libertarian? To me a Libertarian is just a conservative with a bad attitude. ;)

[badcompany]

Your point about computers is lost on me. I said computers have cost people good jobs in the last 40 years. (Post #60 in this thread.) Don't know how you can dispute that but it appears that you just did.

Of course it's lost on you. You live in a time warp.

A computer is a labor saving device. It saves humans from wasting time doing things that can be done more efficiently by a machine. The people who lose their jobs because of labor saving devices move to areas where human labor is more urgently needed. It's called progess. When the light bulb became widely available, it put a lot of candlemakers out of business, but I think any sane person would agree that the lightbulb has been a net positive.

[NJ Stinks]

Of course it's lost on you. You live in a time warp.

A computer is a labor saving device. It saves humans from wasting time doing things that can be done more efficiently by a machine. The people who lose their jobs because of labor saving devices move to areas where human labor is more urgently needed. It's called progess. When the light bulb became widely available, it put a lot of candlemakers out of business, but I think any sane person would agree that the lightbulb has been a net positive.

So where are the new areas "where human labor is more urgently needed"? In China?

I know what progress is. I just don't see the new jobs after the progression.

[newtothegame]

So where are the new areas "where human labor is more urgently needed"? In China?

I know what progress is. I just don't see the new jobs after the progression.
NJ, are ya sure you know what progress is? After the above statement, I might of thought otherwise.....
Here, let me see if I can figure this out......
Teller losses job to ATM (computer)
Computer needs maintenance or computer repair guys and other jobs who now build ATM's......
So, we have progressed from teller to computer guy.....
Yep, seems like progression from one job to the next to me.....:bang:

[Robert Goren]

NJ, are ya sure you know what progress is? After the above statement, I might of thought otherwise.....
Here, let me see if I can figure this out......
Teller losses job to ATM (computer)
Computer needs maintenance or computer repair guys and other jobs who now build ATM's......
So, we have progressed from teller to computer guy.....
Yep, seems like progression from one job to the next to me.....:bang:But the hours worked by the computer guys are less than those worked by the teller or the banks would not have made the switch. It has gotten so bad that a telemarketing call told me push the "one" button to talk to live person. Is that crazy? or Am I getting old? For the record, I pushed a button, the "end" button.

[classhandicapper]

How does slavery fit into that? Or Civil Rights? Should we still be throwing up our hands and saying: "Oh well. If the people of South Carolina feel that strongly about it, too bad for the slaves and other free blacks in that state. Maybe someday you can find a way to escape someday and move up north."

What say ye, ClassH?

Slavery is easy.

There IS universal agreement that slavery is immoral and should be illegal. So there can be a federal law, but it would be an irrelevant law because all the states would pass their own laws against it if there weren't one at the federal level.

If you want to go back in time, then, IMO we should NOT have fought a war and killed 100s of thousands of people and destroyed families, properties etc... partly over that issue. It could/would/should have been resolved peacefully in time as it was in other countries without killing that many people. Yes, not such a great deal for the slaves if they had to wait another 10-20 years to be free, but an even worse deal for millions of people that lost family, friends, homes, in the war.

On civil rights, there are some aspects on which there is universal agreement and others where there is not. For example, IMO affirmative action should probably not be at the federal level even though many states might support it because many people believe it is reverse discrimination and would not. So let it be a state by state issue.

[classhandicapper]

There is a person here who does not know what he is talking about and it is you.
To begin, spending as a percentage of GDP is not higher than ever. I provided the following link above. Apparently you missed it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...09/pdf/hist.pdf
Pages 24 and 25 contain the official chart on spending as a percentage of GDP. It shows that spending was consistently above the 20% mark from the seventies to the mid nineties, and below 20% the last few years. These are official figures, not some made up figures from some righty think tank.

You agree that tax rates were much higher in the 50's, 60's 70's etc, but say that was balanced out by more generous write offs and deductions. Perhaps so, but therein lies the reason you and your ilk are wrong. In the first place the effective tax rate-the tax you pay after all deductions, exemptions etc-was higher in 1960 than it is now. Not only that, but the more you made, the greater the difference.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

A part of the above article compares effective tax rates across the decades from 1960 to 2004. It divides the top one percent into four groups and here is what it says.
For those in the top 1% to 0.5%:
In 1960 they paid 34% of their income in taxes.
In 2004 it was 31.3%

0.1% to 0.5%
1960=41.4%
2004=33%

0.01 to 0.1
1960=55.3%
2004=34.1%

top 0.01%
1960=71.4%
2004=34.7%

In each of those categories the taxpayer was paying a higher rate in 1960 than he is paying now. In the case of the top one one hundredth of one percent, the rate was more than double.

But there is a more important factor to consider. That is why were the effective rates in 1960 so much lower than the actual rate. (91%) As you say it was because there were many deductions and write offs. Those deductions and write offs were for expanding your business and hiring more workers. In those days you needed to contribute to the growth of the economy in order to lower your tax rate. Now you need to do nothing to receive lower rates. Now, for the very richest-the top three categories-the actual tax rate is lower than the effective rate in 1960.

By the way, you say above that you are not a conservative. You talk like a conservative, you walk like a conservative, you smell like a conservative. If not a conservative, what? A libertarian? To me a Libertarian is just a conservative with a bad attitude. ;)

I am a libertarian. Unlike most here I have no real political skin in this game. My only interest is economic. I'm an investor and don't want to have to run my affairs under the assumption that we are going to have decades of stagflation, possible hyperinflation, or an economic collapse. Right now I think we are the fast track to hell.

To address your points.

1. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has been fairly stable over recent decades. There were SHORT TERM SPIKES when GDP fell (recession) or when there was a War or other event that necessitated increased short term spending, but the NORMALIZED rate of spending has been fairly stable. Before social programs and WW2 that it was obviously WAY lower.

2. I did not say there weren't individuals that paid higher effective tax rates in the past when tax rates were higher. I said that the deductions and write-offs were much larger, so the effective tax rates were much lower than the actual tax rates. So pointing to past tax rates is inaccurate at best and purposely misleading for political gain at worst. More importantly, the NET RESULT was that federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have also been fairly stable over the decades (give or take tweaks and variations in GDP)

The difference now is that NORMALIZED spending is rising as a percentage of GDP and is set to rise dramatically in coming decades because of added benefits & programs, shifting demographics etc... That will lead to a dramatic increase in tax receipts as a percentage of GDP on a NORMALIZED basis or a staggering increase in debt, high rates of inflation etc..

If you are comfortable with the idea that effective tax rates must rise dramatically for the wealthy, middle class, and everyone else that has an income or assets and that normalized Federal tax receipts and spending will rise dramatically as a percentage of GDP compared to the past, so be it. I am not and think people that are OK with it are economic imbeciles.

Tax Receipts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

Spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

[Tom]

How does slavery fit into that? Or Civil Rights? Should we still be throwing up our hands and saying: "Oh well. If the people of South Carolina feel that strongly about it, too bad for the slaves and other free blacks in that state. Maybe someday you can find a way to escape someday and move up north."

I think he was referring to actions that do not violate the rights of others.
Like smoking pot. Hiring a hooker. Playing poker on line.

Owning people kind of falls outside the realm of reasonable.
And who do we have to thanks for that?

The republicans.
Democrats were all for owning people, but the repubs said no, that is wrong and went to war to prove the point. The southern dems argued they needed to own people, much like they argue today that as long as they cannot own someone, at least they damn well should be able to drain off their earnings.

Thank GOD for the republicans down through the ages.
A strong, free nation, safe from democratic tyranny and greed.

[classhandicapper]

I think he was referring to actions that do not violate the rights of others.
Like smoking pot. Hiring a hooker. Playing poker on line.

Owning people kind of falls outside the realm of reasonable.


Exactly.

There's a long list of things that most people of sound mind agree about (slavery is one of them).

Then there are things on which there is no consensus yet. So my view is that rather than allowing people's passions on these things to spill into our federal politics and guarantee that some people are going to be furious about the outcome, put them at the state level.

It would still be possible to discuss issues like abortion, gay marriage, internet gambling, prostitution, drugs, affirmative action, regulation of health insurance, government retirement programs, food stamps, welfare etc.. as a country and eventually come to a consensus over time.

Obviously there's a small downside.

Some states could allow or prohibit things that ultimately look like pretty bad decisions decades from now when there is a consensus and we are more enlightened. But I think as long as people can move to be free of restrictions they don't like and/or not have to pay or be exposed to things they find offensive, sinful, uneconomical etc... it will work better.

[hcap]

The difference now is that NORMALIZED spending is rising as a percentage of GDP and is set to rise dramatically in coming decades because of added benefits & programs, shifting demographics etc... That will lead to a dramatic increase in tax receipts as a percentage of GDP on a NORMALIZED basis or a staggering increase in debt, high rates of inflation etc..


Spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tury_chart.html

This is the graph you linked

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_pct.png

Looks like a steady drop

[TJDave]

Of course it's lost on you. You live in a time warp.

A computer is a labor saving device. It saves humans from wasting time doing things that can be done more efficiently by a machine. The people who lose their jobs because of labor saving devices move to areas where human labor is more urgently needed.

Actually, not so much. Used to be jobs requiring labor were plentiful. Not anymore. These folks are moving to the welfare line.

[badcompany]

Actually, not so much. Used to be jobs requiring labor were plentiful. Not anymore. These folks are moving to the welfare line.


I don't buy it.

For 50 million more people to be working than there were 35 years ago, there has to be at least 50 million more jobs.

__________


United States Labor Force Statistics Seasonally Adjusted (in thousands)
1978 - Present

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Number of Employed Jan 1978 - 94,384,000. Jan 2013 143,322,000

__________

Most people who are unemployed are either unemployable, lazy, or think they're above the jobs they could get.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't buy it.

For 50 million more people to be working than there were 35 years ago, there has to be at least 50 million more jobs.

__________


United States Labor Force Statistics Seasonally Adjusted (in thousands)
1978 - Present

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Number of Employed Jan 1978 - 94,384,000. Jan 2013 143,322,000

__________

Most people who are unemployed are either unemployable, lazy, or think they're above the jobs they could get.

Agreed.

More people are working now than they were in 1970... :confused:

More people were paying taxes in 1970 than now... :confused:

We spend 75% more of our budget on entitlements than we did in 1970... :confused:

Why is this so hard for people to get?... :confused:

[delayjf]

Those deductions and write offs were for expanding your business and hiring more workers

Really, can you show one example of a corporation hiring workers or expanding their business solely for the purpose of lower their tax burden? The only reason any business would expand would be if the demand for their product required it.

Its a nice theory, but you will have to show me. Also, do you have the name or can you cite an example of a billionaire paying 71% income tax? I'm going to have to raise the BS flag on that one as well.

[TJDave]

I don't buy it.

For 50 million more people to be working than there were 35 years ago, there has to be at least 50 million more jobs.


I'm not arguing about the number of jobs. Working the counter at McDonald's or a clerk at Macy's ain't a job. This country's full of s**t jobs...paying s**t wages.

[Tom]

Do you think most of the people in those McJobs are really qualified to do anything else? Most of them can't remember my catsup!

[hcap]

Do you think most of the people in those McJobs are really qualified to do anything else? Most of them can't remember my catsup!
I wonder if they have time to post on the internet?

[newtothegame]

I'm not arguing about the number of jobs. Working the counter at McDonald's or a clerk at Macy's ain't a job. This country's full of s**t jobs...paying s**t wages.
But dave, in all fairness, isnt this exactly what the people asked for?
I mean "progress" does not come without cost! People love ATM's yet they turn and bitch because tellers arent there anymore.....
People love cell phones and the internet, yet they bitch and moan about mail service being cut......
You get what I am saying I am sure....EVERYTHING has a cost!

[badcompany]

I'm not arguing about the number of jobs. Working the counter at McDonald's or a clerk at Macy's ain't a job. This country's full of s**t jobs...paying s**t wages.

Yes, they are jobs. Just because you start at the counter of Mcdonalds doesn't mean you'll stay there forever. McDonalds is a 100 billion dollar company. If you're the slightest bit competent, you'll move up.

I understand that the entitlement mentality has reached the point where people with no skills and no experience believe they are entitled to a high paying job, but, in the real world, you still have to pay some dues.

[classhandicapper]

This is the graph you linked

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_pct.png

Looks like a steady drop

Look at the long term charts below that.

In any given year there are ups and downs in the relationship related to the actual level of GDP as it rises or falls (recession vs. boom) and "one time" spending items like wars and safety net programs that come into play.

The chart you are looking at is a meaningless snapshot.

What is meaningful is the long term trend of spending vs. the projections being made to fund the future liabilities for SS, Medicare, government pensions etc... in the decades to come. On that there is universal agreement (even from the economically delusional). Spending as a percentage of GDP is going to rise very significantly in coming decades if we don't slow the growth with reforms.

[Tom]

The chart you are looking at is a meaningless snapshot.

He is used to posting Global Warming charts like that! :lol::lol::lol:

[mostpost]

Really, can you show one example of a corporation hiring workers or expanding their business solely for the purpose of lower their tax burden? The only reason any business would expand would be if the demand for their product required it.

Its a nice theory, but you will have to show me. Also, do you have the name or can you cite an example of a billionaire paying 71% income tax? I'm going to have to raise the BS flag on that one as well.
You are saying that a business will not expand their business if it means they will get a lower tax rate or avoid a higher one. Yet, that has been the mantra of conservatives for the last 30 years plus. Reagan said it, George H W Bush said it. George W Bush said it. Members of Congress said it. But they had it wrong and here is why.

Republicans want to lower taxes and hope that businesses use the money to expand. You are right to say they will not do so unless there is a greater demand for their products. They will simply take the extra money and put it in their pocket. They have no incentive to add workers or production lines.

Democrats offer that incentive. They say, "Here is the tax rate you will pay, but here is a way you can reduce that rate. We are not giving you a lower rate, we are asking you to earn it by doing something that will aid the economy."

The very act of expanding the business and hiring new workers means there will be more demand for the product. The difference between the Republican way and the Democratic way is this. Republicans give the money without strings and hope it will be used to create jobs; Democrats insist that it be used to create jobs.

As to whether I can name a billionaire who paid 71% of his income in taxes, I can not. All I can do is cite the study which I cited in my #75 in this thread.
That study, by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez in 2007 stated that in 1960 the top .01% did indeed pay that percentage.

[BlueShoe]

He is used to posting Global Warming charts like that!
Nearly 60 years ago there was a book written called "How To Lie With Statistics." If we could get him to admit it, Cappy would tell us that it was his bible, his inspiration and guide to his work on this forum. Fess up Cappy, and tell us this is so. Tell us where you keep your well worn copy of Mr. Huff's work.

[Tom]

The thing is, mostie, there were billions of dollars sitting off shore waiting to be invested. With the uncertainty of Obamadon'tcare, high tax rates, and ridiculous levels of new regulations, that money did not come back home. IT was invested, though, in countries smart enough to know Obama and the dems are idiots.

I see it everyday - big money busienss - molds, tooling, hard equipment - going off shore because it can no longer be made here. We no longer have the highly skilled people at the levels we once had, and, we will never get that number back up, and most place here cannot afford to compete with the new businesses outfitted with new equipment bought and paid for with money the dems chased out of here.

[mostpost]

Look at the long term charts below that.

In any given year there are ups and downs in the relationship related to the actual level of GDP as it rises or falls (recession vs. boom) and "one time" spending items like wars and safety net programs that come into play.

The chart you are looking at is a meaningless snapshot.

What is meaningful is the long term trend of spending vs. the projections being made to fund the future liabilities for SS, Medicare, government pensions etc... in the decades to come. On that there is universal agreement (even from the economically delusional). Spending as a percentage of GDP is going to rise very significantly in coming decades if we don't slow the growth with reforms.
The long term charts show us the same thing the chart hcap highlighted shows us. That over the past few years spending as a % of GDP has gone down.

As to the fact that spending has gone up over the long term, well duh. We have four times as many people now than we did in 1900. More importantly we have things we did not have then. We now have to pay for computers, cell phones, automobiles, jet planes, helicopters, aircraft carriers, lasers, scanners, monitors, x-ray machines, metal detectors, missile launchers, rockets, and probably hundreds of items I have not thought of.

As for Social Security, it does not contribute to the deficit and cutting it will not lower the deficit. There are things which need to be done to protect Social Security. The most effective of which would be to eliminate the cap on contributions which now stands at about $113,000.

I know you are going to say that doing that would impose an additional burden on those earning over $113,000. I say it eliminates a regressive tax. As it stands now a person earning $113,000 pays 6.2% of his income while a person earning $1,130,000 pays .62%. Eliminating the cap means everyone pays the same %. Flat tax-isn't that what you guys are clamoring for?

[classhandicapper]

The long term charts show us the same thing the chart hcap highlighted shows us. That over the past few years spending as a % of GDP has gone down.

As to the fact that spending has gone up over the long term, well duh. We have four times as many people now than we did in 1900. More importantly we have things we did not have then. We now have to pay for computers, cell phones, automobiles, jet planes, helicopters, aircraft carriers, lasers, scanners, monitors, x-ray machines, metal detectors, missile launchers, rockets, and probably hundreds of items I have not thought of.

As for Social Security, it does not contribute to the deficit and cutting it will not lower the deficit. There are things which need to be done to protect Social Security. The most effective of which would be to eliminate the cap on contributions which now stands at about $113,000.

I know you are going to say that doing that would impose an additional burden on those earning over $113,000. I say it eliminates a regressive tax. As it stands now a person earning $113,000 pays 6.2% of his income while a person earning $1,130,000 pays .62%. Eliminating the cap means everyone pays the same %. Flat tax-isn't that what you guys are clamoring for?

I suggest you DO NOT look at short term anything.

That's the mistake political analysts make all the time (and how politicians fool the public). It's also how biased journalists persuade people. There are way too many moving parts to isolate all the causes and effects when you discuss short the short term.

On your other points, I agree. The reason you don't just look at spending is because spending will obviously rise as standards of living rise, inflation increases costs, populations expand etc... But GDP accounts for all that. So if spending as a percentage of GDP has been rising long term and is projected to rise long term, it is telling you something very real.

Let's say I make 50K a year and spend 10K a year on entertainment.

Now lets say 10 years later I make 100K and spend 30K.

My spending has gone from 20% to 30%.

GDP is a fairly close approximation to your income, but at the country level.

There are actually details on income in the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Reports that you can find a link to on the internet. THey are like the income and balance sheet statements of the US.

[TJDave]

Do you think most of the people in those McJobs are really qualified to do anything else? Most of them can't remember my catsup!

That's part of my point. We've got millions of these idiots in the labor force. And when they aren't working guess who pays?

[TJDave]

Yes, they are jobs. Just because you start at the counter of Mcdonalds doesn't mean you'll stay there forever. McDonalds is a 100 billion dollar company. If you're the slightest bit competent, you'll move up.


No, you don't. Maybe one-in-a-thousand. And here's the kicker... They're having babies.

[TJDave]

I know you are going to say that doing that would impose an additional burden on those earning over $113,000. I say it eliminates a regressive tax. As it stands now a person earning $113,000 pays 6.2% of his income while a person earning $1,130,000 pays .62%. Eliminating the cap means everyone pays the same %. Flat tax-isn't that what you guys are clamoring for?

I got no problem with that...as long as you also eliminate the cap on benefits paid out. ;)

[mostpost]

I got no problem with that...as long as you also eliminate the cap on benefits paid out. ;)
Nope. Not going to do that. We are trying to create a self sustaining program. You can't do that if you combine eliminating the cap on contribution with eliminating the cap on benefits. Maybe later, after we have stabilized the program we can raise the cap.

[hcap]

The long term charts show us the same thing the chart hcap highlighted shows us. That over the past few years spending as a % of GDP has gone down. So has the the defecit. And according to latest CBO estimates although it will go up, it will stabilize . Whether or not the sequeuster goes into effect. RIGHT NOW, the problem is not the deficit or out of control spending as you guys claim, it is growing the economy so we can support increased costs of the elderly and contrlling what is out of control HEALTH CARE COSTS---which appear to be coming down under Obamacare


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_pct.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_20c.png

[Tom]

That's part of my point. We've got millions of these idiots in the labor force. And when they aren't working guess who pays?

The rest of us idiots!

[badcompany]

Nearly 60 years ago there was a book written called "How To Lie With Statistics." If we could get him to admit it, Cappy would tell us that it was his bible, his inspiration and guide to his work on this forum. Fess up Cappy, and tell us this is so. Tell us where you keep your well worn copy of Mr. Huff's work.

Next to his dog-eared copy of this badboy:lol:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_PunlxVHoX4/UDHXuktLDeI/AAAAAAAAEzg/h6BpKRoBVco/s1600/29eb3_communist-manifesto-cover1.jpg

[hcap]

Which is also next to

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID22536/images/going-rouge-small.jpg


And hanging on the living room wall is this autograghed 4' by 5' full color custom framed poster.........










The one and only........












Irreplaceable..................










http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2012/01/medium_d80602eba19c6d9b8fb8051845a2b7d0.jpg


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[badcompany]

I'm sure you're looking foward to 2014 when the Dems take back Congress and this fun lookin' gal makes her triumphant return:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.112113.1313946251!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-nancy-pelosi-jpg.jpg

[elysiantraveller]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130227110119-employee-salary-cost-620xa.jpg

Just pay them more... :rolleyes:

CNN Story (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/28/smallbusiness/salary-benefits/index.html)

[hcap]

http://www.itep.org/pdf/lafferhighrate.pdf

Have not have time to read this, but Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is non partisan

States with “High Rate” Income Taxes are Still Outperforming No-Tax States

Executive Summary

Lawmakers seeking to cut or repeal state personal income taxes often claim that states without such taxes are outperforming the rest of the country, and that their economic growth can be easily replicated in any state that abandons its personal income tax. The governors of Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, as well as high-ranking officials pushing for income tax repeal in Louisiana and North Carolina, are some of the more influential lawmakers that have used this talking point. But this claim is based on an
analysis by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer that is extremely flawed


In reality, states that levy personal income taxes, including the states with the highest top rates, have seen more economic growth per capita and less decline in their median income level over the last ten years than the nine states that do not tax income.Unemployment rates have been nearly identical across states with and without income taxes.


More fundamentally, Laffer’s simplistic analysis fails to account for the fact that states without income taxes often choose not to levy such a tax precisely because they possess unusual economic advantages that allow them to raise revenue (and grow their economies) in ways that other states cannot. In-state analysts and Laffer himself have correctly observed that factors like natural resources, federal military spending, and even favorable climate contribute to state economic growth. Many of these factors are of
great significance in states without income taxes, but while Laffer mentions them in the text of his reports, he makes no effort to control for them in his quantitative analyses.


More careful academic literature that controls for non-tax factors has often found state income taxes to have little, if any, impact on state economic growth


Evidently ANOTHER right wing confused speculative economic talking point bites the dust.



What else is new? :cool:

[fast4522]

I'm sure you're looking foward to 2014 when the Dems take back Congress and this fun lookin' gal makes her triumphant return:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.112113.1313946251!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-nancy-pelosi-jpg.jpg

Unlike some folks I prefer to refer to her as the witch Pelosi. And some really feel this one may even get to fly her broom again in 2014. I am optimistic more will have a more painful experience.

[hcap]

I am optimistic more will have a more painful experience.

Like in 2008?


http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID22536/images/going-rouge-small.jpg

[badcompany]

http://www.itep.org/pdf/lafferhighrate.pdf

Have not have time to read this, but Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is non partisan

States with “High Rate” Income Taxes are Still Outperforming No-Tax States

Executive Summary

Lawmakers seeking to cut or repeal state personal income taxes often claim that states without such taxes are outperforming the rest of the country, and that their economic growth can be easily replicated in any state that abandons its personal income tax. The governors of Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, as well as high-ranking officials pushing for income tax repeal in Louisiana and North Carolina, are some of the more influential lawmakers that have used this talking point. But this claim is based on an
analysis by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer that is extremely flawed


In reality, states that levy personal income taxes, including the states with the highest top rates, have seen more economic growth per capita and less decline in their median income level over the last ten years than the nine states that do not tax income.Unemployment rates have been nearly identical across states with and without income taxes.


More fundamentally, Laffer’s simplistic analysis fails to account for the fact that states without income taxes often choose not to levy such a tax precisely because they possess unusual economic advantages that allow them to raise revenue (and grow their economies) in ways that other states cannot. In-state analysts and Laffer himself have correctly observed that factors like natural resources, federal military spending, and even favorable climate contribute to state economic growth. Many of these factors are of
great significance in states without income taxes, but while Laffer mentions them in the text of his reports, he makes no effort to control for them in his quantitative analyses.


More careful academic literature that controls for non-tax factors has often found state income taxes to have little, if any, impact on state economic growth


Evidently ANOTHER right wing confused speculative economic talking point bites the dust.



What else is new? :cool:

As usual, you have it back asswards. States that perform well present a plum to politicians who usually respond by trying to suck as much milk out of the cow as possible via taxation.

High performing states do so in spite of high taxes not because of them.

[hcap]

As usual, you have it back asswards. States that perform well present a plum to politicians who usually respond by trying to suck as much milk out of the cow as possible via taxation.

High performing states do so in spite of high taxes not because of them.Nice spin! Creative as well. But I am not buying more anecdotal speculation from the right :)

Find a study that supports your theory

[badcompany]

But I am not buying more anecdotal speculation from the right :)


Who cares?


Find a study that supports your theory

No.

[fast4522]

Exactly,

Bogus has to be his middle name.

[TJDave]

Just pay them more... :rolleyes:


What...pay them less?

Employees make employers money. If they don't then they shouldn't be employed. I always paid my people top dollar with benefits...and was rewarded handsomely.

[hcap]

Who cares? No.

:lol: :lol:
That's Ok. I understand your confusion about 18th century economic theory that fairly well described agrarian small towns, where everyone knew there local merchants, not always translating to more complicated dynamic systems.

[elysiantraveller]

What...pay them less?

I never said that.

[delayjf]

that factors like natural resources, federal military spending, and even favorable climate contribute to state economic growth. Many of these factors are of great significance in states without income taxes,

CA has all of the above and would absolutely collapse without state income tax. Even with everything going for it, AND one of the highest income tax rates in the country, they are still billions in the hole. NY not far behind.

[badcompany]

CA has all of the above and would absolutely collapse without state income tax. Even with everything going for it, AND one of the highest income tax rates in the country, they are still billions in the hole. NY not far behind.

Since Hcap & Most think high taxes have no adverse effects, and, in fact, spur economic growth, why not raise them on everyone, especially the poor, since they, more than anyone, can use the benefits and blessings of high taxation?

[hcap]

Since Hcap & Most think high taxes have no adverse effects, and, in fact, spur economic growth, why not raise them on everyone, especially the poor, since they, more than anyone, can use the benefits and blessings of high taxation?Just because a study shows facts you don't particularly like, and I post it, Mosty and I have very little to do with the study or your complaining about said study. :cool:

Post your own. :)

[badcompany]

Just because a study shows facts you don't particularly like, and I post it, Mosty and I have very little to do with the study or your complaining about said study. :cool:

Post your own. :)

No, the study is showing statistics from which you are drawing absurd conclusions to suit your ideology.

High tax states outperform low tax states; therefore high taxes are good.

If that's the case, high tax people out perform low tax people, so you should be in favor of taxing the hell out of low income people who pay little or no taxes.

[hcap]

No, the study is showing statistics from which you are drawing absurd conclusions to suit your ideology.Huh?

Once again here is the title of the study

States with “High Rate” Income Taxes
are Still Outperforming No-Tax States

What conclusions would you draw?
Let me guess...............

Obama is a Kenyan tyranical commie/socialist with no valid ID :cool:

[badcompany]

Huh?

Once again here is the title of the study

States with “High Rate” Income Taxes
are Still Outperforming No-Tax States


What conclusions would you draw?
Let me guess...............

Obama is a Kenyan tyranical commie/socialist with no valid ID :cool:

No, that the perfomance is in spite of the high taxes. It is a possibility.:p

[Tom]

Or the taxes are a democrat leeching off of the successful states.
No one leeches like democrats - not even leeches.

[BlueShoe]

No one leeches like democrats - not even leeches.
I never mention or compare Democrats to leeches in the same sentence, it is insulting to leeches and very unfair to them to say that they are that low. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Since Hcap & Most think high taxes have no adverse effects, and, in fact, spur economic growth, why not raise them on everyone, especially the poor, since they, more than anyone, can use the benefits and blessings of high taxation?
You just refuse to understand, or maybe you are incapable of understanding. The whole idea of progressive taxation is that those who can afford it pay more and those who cannot afford it pay less. One size does not fit all. Would you treat a farm in the dessert the same way you would treat one in the rain forest? of course not, one would get extra water the other would get none.

[Tom]

You just refuse to understand, or maybe you are incapable of understanding. The whole idea of progressive taxation is that those who can afford it pay more and those who cannot afford it pay less.

And what you are incapable of understanding is that those who make more already pay FAR more than their fair share. No matter what little fantasy world you libs live in.

[TJDave]

And what you are incapable of understanding is that those who make more already pay FAR more than their fair share. No matter what little fantasy world you libs live in.

Not really. Folks who pay their "fair share" are typically salaried and take standard deductions. Everyone else...LESS THAN...rich or poor, legally or not. ;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not really. Folks who pay their "fair share" are typically salaried and take standard deductions. Everyone else...LESS THAN...rich or poor, legally or not. ;)

Yeah, not always. As a low income worker for most of my life, I pay WAY more than my fair share when I have to file as self-employed versus spending a few minutes with a 1040 and a W-Whatever from an employer.

I make under $10k as a salaried employee and the FED is bending over backwards to give me money. I make under $10k as self-employed poor folk and the FED is bending me over. Of course when you list a racetrack as your place of employment and don't send quarterly estimates, I guess they just assume that you are total scum - but I'd rather just pay 15% and take a few deductions that can't be questioned as opposed to spending even a minute dealing with some clown from the IRS that has me pegged as the epitome of whats wrong with American taxpayers.

[newtothegame]

You just refuse to understand, or maybe you are incapable of understanding. The whole idea of progressive taxation is that those who can afford it pay more and those who cannot afford it pay less. One size does not fit all. Would you treat a farm in the dessert the same way you would treat one in the rain forest? of course not, one would get extra water the other would get none.
So wait, let me get this right....."One size does not fit all" when it comes to taxation.....but when it comes to other agendas the left is pushing its all good? Obamacare...one size fits all right?
Gun rights, one size (the lefts) fits all?
Gay marriage...one size fits all???
lol ...you guys on the left are soo funny!!! :lol:
And just so you know, before you try to retort about anti gay,one size fits all for me....I have never said such. What I have said is its not for me but if another wishes to do so, that's them!

[NJ Stinks]

but I'd rather just pay 15% and take a few deductions that can't be questioned as opposed to spending even a minute dealing with some clown from the IRS that has me pegged as the epitome of whats wrong with American taxpayers.

Did you two just have a fight or something? :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Did you two just have a fight or something? :confused:

I very carefully did not include retired clowns. They are actually fun and enjoyable to talk, well try to talk, shop with. Helpful too. Get off my case.

:D

[badcompany]

You just refuse to understand, or maybe you are incapable of understanding. The whole idea of progressive taxation is that those who can afford it pay more and those who cannot afford it pay less. One size does not fit all. Would you treat a farm in the dessert the same way you would treat one in the rain forest? of course not, one would get extra water the other would get none.

You see, my problem is that I believe in Capitalism, and, in a Capitalist system, consumers voluntarily put capital in the hands of those who best satisfy consumer wants and needs, the best current example being Apple which currently is sitting 120 billion in cash.

You, and your left wing buddies on this forum, hate Capitalism with a passion. So you look for every lame excuse to TAKE capital via taxation from those who are the most productive and redistribute it. This can work for awhile but, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, you run out of other people's money to spend.

[JustRalph]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/california-net-exporter-of-residents/

Ca exporting lower class residents too

The reverse Joads

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578326402863024028.html

[badcompany]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/california-net-exporter-of-residents/

Ca exporting lower class residents too

The reverse Joads

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578326402863024028.html

Great thread. Liberals destroy everything they touch, but they mean well :)

[mostpost]

You see, my problem is that I believe in Capitalism, and, in a Capitalist system, consumers voluntarily put capital in the hands of those who best satisfy consumer wants and needs, the best current example being Apple which currently is sitting 120 billion in cash.

You, and your left wing buddies on this forum, hate Capitalism with a passion. So you look for every lame excuse to TAKE capital via taxation from those who are the most productive and redistribute it. This can work for awhile but, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, you run out of other people's money to spend.
I just came across this and am compelled to respond. I do not hate capitalism in any sense and I certainly do not hate it with passion. I just do not love it so much that I am blinded to its flaws and to its potential for abuse. Sadly we can not say the same about you.

Unregulated capitalism has never worked; has always overreached, always creates bubbles which lead to crashes. Capitalism is like the three year old in a candy store. One or two pieces would be fine, but it can not stop itself. Five, ten pieces is not enough and the only way it will stop is after it has eaten all the candy and is lying on the floor holding its tummy.

The problem is capitalism is much bigger than our three year old; much more powerful. When it gorges, it hurts everyone-capital, labor, government.

Capitalism needs regulation to work. Capitalism needs a strong labor force to counteract it. Capitalism needs reasonable regulation. The economy is a three legged stool. ( I was going to say Troika, but oh my God!!!) Each of the legs needs to be the same length. None of the legs can be missing.

Now, under this system there won't be as many billionaires and those who do become billionaires will have to work longer to do so, but the wealth of the nation will have a stronger, more secure foundation and people will share in that wealth more equitably.

And there will be less anchors and more people contributing. I know you can't see it that way, but it is true.

[horses4courses]

I just came across this and am compelled to respond. I do not hate capitalism in any sense and I certainly do not hate it with passion. I just do not love it so much that I am blinded to its flaws and to its potential for abuse. Sadly we can not say the same about you.

Unregulated capitalism has never worked; has always overreached, always creates bubbles which lead to crashes. Capitalism is like the three year old in a candy store. One or two pieces would be fine, but it can not stop itself. Five, ten pieces is not enough and the only way it will stop is after it has eaten all the candy and is lying on the floor holding its tummy.

The problem is capitalism is much bigger than our three year old; much more powerful. When it gorges, it hurts everyone-capital, labor, government.

Capitalism needs regulation to work. Capitalism needs a strong labor force to counteract it. Capitalism needs reasonable regulation. The economy is a three legged stool. ( I was going to say Troika, but oh my God!!!) Each of the legs needs to be the same length. None of the legs can be missing.

Now, under this system there won't be as many billionaires and those who do become billionaires will have to work longer to do so, but the wealth of the nation will have a stronger, more secure foundation and people will share in that wealth more equitably.

And there will be less anchors and more people contributing. I know you can't see it that way, but it is true.

Extremely well put, sir. :ThmbUp:

Capitalism needs reasonable regulation

Not easily achieved, but it's the best scenario in a free economy.

[Tom]

And you would be hard pressed to define the slew of new regulations put on businesses by the Obama disaster as reasonable.

[badcompany]

And you would be hard pressed to define the slew of new regulations put on businesses by the Obama disaster as reasonable.

If the two previous posters were correct, a heavily intervened city like Detroit would be a nirvana, but that's not the case, now, is it?

[mostpost]

And you would be hard pressed to define the slew of new regulations put on businesses by the Obama disaster as reasonable.
I seriously doubt if you could name a single regulation imposed by the Obama administration, yet you are going to decide which are reasonable.

A reasonable regulation is one which addresses a problem and in which the costs are outweighed by the benefits. For instance, a law requiring companies to treat waste dumped in rivers may cost a company x$, but may save many times x$ in health care costs. Regulations requiring food safety inspections pay for themselves many times over in lives saved.

Many times companies welcome regulation because regulation means everyone has to comply. Regulation means that some companies don't spend money to be good citizens while others ignore safety in favor of profit.

So how do new regulations promulgated by the Obama administration fare under the cost/benefit analysis?
According to this link, they do quite well.
http://www.economist.com/node/17961890
Chart 2 shows us that these regulations cost $10B, while providing benefits of about $48B, almost a five to one ROI. Much better than under Bush, or Clinton.

[mostpost]

If the two previous posters were correct, a heavily intervened city like Detroit would be a nirvana, but that's not the case, now, is it?
You're confusing regulation with intervention. Regulation stops a problem from happening. Regulation says we send waste water through filtration plants so it does not pollute our water source. Intervention is what is done after someone tries to bypass the filtration plant.

Detroit's problems are multifaceted , but a big portion of them were caused by the failure of the big three auto companies. And that failure can be laid at the door of the upper management of those companies. Management which could not see the American public turning away for gas guzzlers to more economical cars. Management which was slow to develop high mileage vehicles. And yes, management which agreed to a "jobs bank" in which laid off workers were paid full salaries indefinitely. I believe in giving workers a chance to get a new job or helping them through a difficult time, but even I see the foolishness of this plan.

Also, you're confusing Detroit with the auto industry. Detroit has its own set of problems and they predate the Obama administration by decades. By any measure the Obama "intervention" in the auto industry has been quite successful. Thousands of laid off workers have been rehired. Shuttered plants have reopened. Monthly sales are reaching new plateaus.

[Tom]

mostie, Earth is the THIRD planted fro the sun.
Try again.


btw, ask FARMERS about stifling regulations.

[badcompany]

You're confusing regulation with intervention. Regulation stops a problem from happening. Regulation says we send waste water through filtration plants so it does not pollute our water source. Intervention is what is done after someone tries to bypass the filtration plant.

Detroit's problems are multifaceted , but a big portion of them were caused by the failure of the big three auto companies. And that failure can be laid at the door of the upper management of those companies. Management which could not see the American public turning away for gas guzzlers to more economical cars. Management which was slow to develop high mileage vehicles. And yes, management which agreed to a "jobs bank" in which laid off workers were paid full salaries indefinitely. I believe in giving workers a chance to get a new job or helping them through a difficult time, but even I see the foolishness of this plan.

Also, you're confusing Detroit with the auto industry. Detroit has its own set of problems and they predate the Obama administration by decades. By any measure the Obama "intervention" in the auto industry has been quite successful. Thousands of laid off workers have been rehired. Shuttered plants have reopened. Monthly sales are reaching new plateaus.


Regulation and Intervention are talons of the same Eagle. Regulation is the state deciding to get involved in a business. The intervention is how they do so.

A good example is the Yellow Cab business in NYC. In the old days, if you wanted to start your own taxi business, you got a license for a few bucks, bought a cab and you were good to go. Then, the city decided that the number of licenses should be frozen. This created an artificial shortage of supply which, in turn, created an artificially high demand which drove up the price of a license (called a Medalion).

Today, if you wanted to start your own taxi business, the Medalion would cost you about a million bucks (that's not a typo). This absurd cost excludes the little guy and puts all the Medalions in the hands of the big fleet companies. Meanwhile, taxi prices keep going up and there's never a cab around during rush hour.

The type of regulation you describe is best achieved by strong property rights. If a company pollutes a body of water it doesn't own, it should be held accountable both criminally and financially. Government regulation doesn't work as the regulators inevitably become hand maiden to those who are supposed to be regulation. Government interventions produce the opposite of the intended effect.
Regarding Detroit, your pathetic excuse making not withstanding, it's an example of the heavily unionized big government model failing, just like California. Deal with it.

[badcompany]

mostie, Earth is the THIRD planted fro the sun.
Try again.


btw, ask FARMERS about stifling regulations.

The European Union Commission produces something like 7000 regulations a years. It's working out real well for them.

[Robert Goren]

mostie, Earth is the THIRD planted fro the sun.
Try again.


btw, ask FARMERS about stifling regulations.And while you are at it, asked them about the massive government handouts they get every year.

[JustRalph]

And while you are at it, asked them about the massive government handouts they get every year.

So, now you're against government handouts?

Where should we start?

[Rookies]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sunday-review/getting-serious-about-a-texas-size-drought.html?ref=opinion

So Ralph, when will you be moving on? H2O is the 21st Century's Oil & Gold together and drought could transform the Southwest into Afghanistan.

We've got up to 20% of the Earth's supply of it. You could come here, but you wouldn't want to be an illegal alien, right? :lol:

[Tom]

We've got up to 20% of the Earth's supply of it. You could come here, but you wouldn't want to be an illegal alien, right? :lol:

Hey, that is no longer accepted language!
Where have you been,m under a rock????
They are now called unregistered democrats!

[delayjf]

Capitalism needs a strong labor force to counteract it
How so? Especially considering the labor laws currently in place?

Question?

Do you believe that CA and NY prosper BECAUSE of the high taxation in those states - I would say that they prosper in spite of high taxes? Wealthy people and Corporations stay in CA and NY for a myriad of reasons. But I seriously doubt they stay here because they like high tax rates.

I.E. Over the past decade more and more Hollywood has chosen to film more and more outside of CA. To the point that now the State is offering tax incentives to studios if they will film in CA.

[JustRalph]

I could move, but it would be to another "no state tax" state. My wife has a career with lots of possibilities. She gets lots of offers. You never know.......

For now I am very happy in Texas

[BlueShoe]

Hey, that is no longer accepted language!
Where have you been,m under a rock????
They are now called unregistered democrats!
Be patient, if and when the Obama administration and their cronies ram home their "Comprehensive immigration reform" package, ie, amnesty, they will become "New citizen voters." :mad: In the meantime the Dimicrats will make sure that they keep getting all that free stuff, none of which they have earned or are entitled to. :bang: Nothing like having 11 million new voters that will vote your party ticket to keep you in power, is there? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

"Comprehensive immigration reform" = Shamnesty.
No low this cretin will not sink to.

[johnhannibalsmith]

"Comprehensive immigration reform" = Shamnesty.
No low this cretin will not sink to.

I know you are aware, but half the beloved GOP is doing everything they can to take credit for it. This is one thing Obama really doesn't deserve any credit for. This one is Romney's baby more than anyone's.

[newtothegame]

I know you are aware, but half the beloved GOP is doing everything they can to take credit for it. This is one thing Obama really doesn't deserve any credit for. This one is Romney's baby more than anyone's.
The GOP realizes if they wish to make any inroads, it has to be on this platform. I mean its not like they can turn around and go tax happy now.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The GOP realizes if they wish to make any inroads, it has to be on this platform. I mean its not like they can turn around and go tax happy now.

They know good and well, especially after the last election, they have to salvage what they can of the many million votes that they've already lost and try to split the dozen million still up for grabs. Marco Rubio will have to get busted for male prostitution not to get preordained unless they locate a suitable female facsimile. Everything the Dems take shit for in pandering for votes, the GOP is doing everything they can do outdo them. Great news. I actually can't wait to finally be a minority so I can talk smack again and accuse everyone that crosses me of being a racist sexist sonofabeech.

[newtothegame]

They know good and well, especially after the last election, they have to salvage what they can of the many million votes that they've already lost and try to split the dozen million still up for grabs. Marco Rubio will have to get busted for male prostitution not to get preordained unless they locate a suitable female facsimile. Everything the Dems take shit for in pandering for votes, the GOP is doing everything they can do outdo them. Great news. I actually can't wait to finally be a minority so I can talk smack again and accuse everyone that crosses me of being a racist sexist sonofabeech.

We are not far from that sir.....
as to the GOP, I have said all of the SOB's in washington can go to hell for all I care (I just hope some dems get there sooner).

[BlueShoe]

I know you are aware, but half the beloved GOP is doing everything they can to take credit for it.
Ain't Republicans. We all do know what the acronym RINO stands for, right?

[JustRalph]

http://bit.ly/1fF7vT2

Another company headed to Texas from SoCal

[Clocker]

http://bit.ly/1fF7vT2

Another company headed to Texas from SoCal

Be careful what you wish for. While management is making a rational business decision, a lot of the worker bees that come along bring their political baggage with them.

Look what happened to Colorado after it got Californicated. A number of fire-arms related companies relocated out of state due to onerous gun laws.

[GaryG]

Be careful what you wish for. While management is making a rational business decision, a lot of the worker bees that come along bring their political baggage with them.

Look what happened to Colorado after it got Californicated. A number of fire-arms related companies relocated out of state due to onerous gun laws.This exactly what happened when Austin became a smaller version of Silicon Valley.

[TJDave]

Be careful what you wish for. While management is making a rational business decision, a lot of the worker bees that come along bring their political baggage with them.

Look what happened to Colorado after it got Californicated. A number of fire-arms related companies relocated out of state due to onerous gun laws.

There are parts of Texas that are quite civilized. Austin is one of them.