The (totally bogus) theory of tax cuts

[mostpost]

Which is, if you cut taxes, businesses will have more money to spend on growing their business and workers will make more money.

Well, David Cay Johnston of Al Jazeera America looked at that theory. He looked at the IRS statistics for tax returns from 2000 through 2012. Adjusting for inflation and population growth, he learned the following. All figures are 2014 dollars.

In 2000 the average American family brought home $67,973. The following year-after George Bush took office-that number dropped to $63,637. A loss of ($3,925). in 2002 average income was ($6,004) lower than in 2000 and in 2003 the drop was ($6,440). In only two of the twelve years did an American family's income exceed what it had been in 2000.

Overall, American families lost $6,600,000,000,000 over the twelve year period. That's $6.6 trillion. If those folks paid only 10% if that income in taxes, the government would have collected $660,000,000,000.


http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/economy-bush-taxcutsgrowthjobs.html

[davew]

Just think how bad it would have been if 0bama didn't have such a successful stimulus since he has been in office.

[mostpost]

Just think how bad it would have been if 0bama didn't have such a successful stimulus since he has been in office.
We would not have needed a stimulus had the Republicans not screwed up the economy.

[Boris]

So other than the Bush tax cuts, nothing else happened in those years. No other tax policy was changed. Everything was sunshine and unicorns dancing under rainbows. umhm.

[Tom]

Everything was sunshine and unicorns dancing under rainbows. umhm.

It should be required that all of mostie's posts start with "Once upon a time...." and end with "...and they all lived happily ever after."

[mostpost]

So other than the Bush tax cuts, nothing else happened in those years. No other tax policy was changed. Everything was sunshine and unicorns dancing under rainbows. umhm.
Plenty of other things happened, but we were told that if we cut taxes prosperity would be ours. The great recession made things worse, but even before it began in December 2007, American families lost $2.35T in wages.

[davew]

Plenty of other things happened, but we were told that if we cut taxes prosperity would be ours. The great recession made things worse, but even before it began in December 2007, American families lost $2.35T in wages.

you quote numbers like an union organizer - unions are dying except in government

[mostpost]

you quote numbers like an union organizer - unions are dying except in government
Which is another reason wages are stagnant or falling.

[davew]

I guess I long to be a proud union member with no job.

[Clocker]

No other tax policy was changed. Everything was sunshine and unicorns dancing under rainbows. umhm.

Sorry, but you are laboring under a serious misconception regarding the unicorn situation. Using his pen and phone, early in his administration Obama issued a covert executive order declaring double secret probation on unicorns. This was based on a peer-reviewed paper, supported by 98% of all unicorn scientists, that found that unicorn flatulence caused global warming. Upon urging by the EPA, all unicorns in the country were shipped to Gitmo, where they remain to this day.

[ArlJim78]

Remember back in 2009 and 2010 when democrats controlled both congress and the White House and got rid of all the evil Bush tax cuts that were holding back so much wealth from so many Americans? neither do I. In fact most of them are still in place.

[Boris]

Remember back in 2009 and 2010 when democrats controlled both congress and the White House and got rid of all the evil Bush tax cuts that were holding back so much wealth from so many Americans? neither do I. In fact most of them are still in place.
I believe Obama signed on making them permanent. I would also think that the early increases for the ACA are part of the $6.6. And 911 was just another day in NYC. The whole opinion piece is just silly.

[mostpost]

Sorry, but you are laboring under a serious misconception regarding the unicorn situation. Using his pen and phone, early in his administration Obama issued a covert executive order declaring double secret probation on unicorns. This was based on a peer-reviewed paper, supported by 98% of all unicorn scientists, that found that unicorn flatulence caused global warming. Upon urging by the EPA, all unicorns in the country were shipped to Gitmo, where they remain to this day.
You do understand the meaning of the word global, right? It means worldwide. So the effects would be the same if the unicorns fart in the USA or if they fart at Gitmo. No unicorns were ever shipped to Gitmo. They live their lives in serenity in a special preserve along with other fairy tales such as the Laffer Curve, death panels and commie infiltration.

[Clocker]

In 2000 the average American family brought home $67,973. The following year-after George Bush took office-that number dropped to $63,637.

Bush took office in January, 2001. The recession started in March, 2001. Please explain what policies Bush enacted in January and February that resulted in a recession in March.

Hint: that recession is largely attributed to Federal Reserve policy for the previous year or more that significantly increased interest rates.

Double dog hint: It generally takes a minimum of a quarter or two for any change in public policy to have a measurable impact on the economy.

[Clocker]

You do understand the meaning of the word global, right? It means worldwide. So the effects would be the same if the unicorns fart in the USA or if they fart at Gitmo.

Cuba is the most socialist country in the western hemisphere. Since socialism sucks, Cuba really sucks, and the unicorn flatulence is unable to escape the socialist suckage into the atmosphere and forms a permanent cloud over the island.

[dartman51]

Bush took office in January, 2001. The recession started in March, 2001. Please explain what policies Bush enacted in January and February that resulted in a recession in March.

Hint: that recession is largely attributed to Federal Reserve policy for the previous year or more that significantly increased interest rates.

Double dog hint: It generally takes a minimum of a quarter or two for any change in public policy to have a measurable impact on the economy.

Dammit Clocker, there you go messing up Mosties fairy tale with facts. You know that's not nice. :p

[NJ Stinks]

you quote numbers like an union organizer - unions are dying except in government

Yep. And benefits died along with the unions.

[mostpost]

Bush took office in January, 2001. The recession started in March, 2001. Please explain what policies Bush enacted in January and February that resulted in a recession in March.

Hint: that recession is largely attributed to Federal Reserve policy for the previous year or more that significantly increased interest rates.

Double dog hint: It generally takes a minimum of a quarter or two for any change in public policy to have a measurable impact on the economy.

In your pathetic attempt to prove your point, you have ignored half my post. The half that shows that for four years after 2001, wages continued well below that 2000 baseline. You also ignored the half that says that wages dropped in six of the eight bush years and the half that stated the total loss during the Bush years alone was over $2T

So if it takes a quarter or two for a policy to take effect, how do you explain the continued failures of Bush four years and more after Clinton took office.
Clinton left Bush with a much better country than Bush left Obama. Budget surpluses; no wars; a recession but nowhere near as serious as the great recession; a policy for dealing with terrorism which was immediately ignored and dismantled.

[Clocker]

Which is, if you cut taxes, businesses will have more money to spend on growing their business and workers will make more money.

That is not a valid description of any comprehensive theory of tax reform. Cutting taxes in and of itself may or may not stimulate growth. It depends on other policies.

The biggest problem with any kind of tax reform in this country is that a comprehensive reform requires cuts in tax rates, streamlining of the tax code (reduction and eventual elimination of special interest treatment), and fiscal responsibility. The fiscal responsibility part may have been exiled to Gitmo with the unicorns, but neither major party seems to believe in its existence.

George Bush was not a policy genius, and I do not know who was advising him at the time. He achieved the first part, the tax cuts. No moderately competent economist would claim that would succeed in isolation. I don't know if Bush intended to take the next steps, or if he got derailed by 9/11. I don't know if he intended to take the next steps but got derailed by a tax and spend Congress. I do not know if Bush thought that the tax cuts in and of themselves would be sufficient. As I said, the man is not a genius.

The fact is that Bush did not implement what any competent economist would consider a sound, comprehensive tax reform policy, and because of that and the war or wars, the economy hit the skids.

And Obama inherited a bad economy and made it worse.

Attacking tax reform on the basis of the results of the Bush administration is a straw man attack. Bush did not implement, and probably did not understand, comprehensive tax reform. If he did, he certainly was fighting a losing war against the tax and borrow and spend Democrats.

[davew]

Clinton left Bush with a much better country than Bush left Obama. Budget surpluses; no wars; a recession but nowhere near as serious as the great recession; a policy for dealing with terrorism which was immediately ignored and dismantled.

I can't eait to see what -0bama leaves the next pres...

[Clocker]

In your pathetic attempt to prove your point, you have ignored half my post. The half that shows that for four years after 2001, wages continued well below that 2000 baseline.

Perhaps because the events of 9/11 had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

Perhaps because the combined effects of both parties irresponsibly conspiring to fund the war off the books had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

Perhaps because the combined effects of both parties irresponsibly conspiring to run an unfunded deficit based economy had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

The Republicans screwed up big time. So did the Democrats. Your "pathetic attempt to prove your point" ignores the joint complicity of the politicians on both sides of the aisle in damaging an economy that remains a mess today. Despite your "pathetic attempt to prove your point" that your Beloved Leader has created a new paradise on earth, the majority of people in this country believe that the economy is in trouble, and that Obama is incompetent.

[NJ Stinks]

Perhaps because the events of 9/11 had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

Perhaps because the combined effects of both parties irresponsibly conspiring to fund the war off the books had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

Perhaps because the combined effects of both parties irresponsibly conspiring to run an unfunded deficit based economy had a drastic exogenous impact on the economy?

The Republicans screwed up big time. So did the Democrats. Your "pathetic attempt to prove your point" ignores the joint complicity of the politicians on both sides of the aisle in damaging an economy that remains a mess today. Despite your "pathetic attempt to prove your point" that your Beloved Leader has created a new paradise on earth, the majority of people in this country believe that the economy is in trouble, and that Obama is incompetent.

Blaming the Bush tax cuts on "joint complicity" by Dems and the GOP is absurd. Just in case you were out of the country at the time. :rolleyes:
________________________________

Whenever you talk to Conservatives about the Bush tax cuts they invariably say that the Democratic party voted for them too, how this easily checked fact continues to be unchallenged is beyond me. Conservatives use this to push their narrative that the Democratic party is also to blame for the economic position we are in. One thing we can do in this newfangled age of the innertubes is check the roll call vote lists. There were two tax cuts that Bush proposed, the first one was H.R. 1836 (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 ). For the Senate, the tallies are Republicans with 46 ayes, 2 nays, and 2 not voting. That would be 92% voting for it, 4% against it, 4% not voting. For the Democrats, 12 ayes, 31 nays, 2 present, 5 not voting. Or 24% for it, 62% against it, 4% present, and 10% not voting. That would be 76% not voting for it. It doesn't seem like the Senate Democrats voted for it, less than a quarter voted for it. To say that the senate Democratic party voted for H.R. 1836 would be quite a stretch by any means. How about the House? Republican yeas are 211, nays 0, a big fat goose egg. The Democrats 28 yeas to 153 nays. That would be 85% against it and 15% for it. That should lay that one to rest right? Right?

Then we have H.R.2. The 2.0 version if you will in 2003. In the Senate you have Republicans with 48 yeas, Democrats 47 nays. Seems pretty cut and dried there also. The House has Republicans with 224 yeas and 1 nay, the Democrats with 198 nays with 7 yeas. Cut and dried enough to smoke. Which is what the Republican party is famous for, smoke, and mirrors also, cant forget the mirrors. So whenever you hear some beltway pundit like Joe the ex-politician morning show guy try to pin the tail on the Donkey (Ha!) You know where the facts lie.

Link:

http://www.eko.aboni.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/257-the-false-narrative-that-the-democratic-party-voted-for-the-bush-tax-cuts-needs-to-be-laid-to-rest

[tucker6]

Blaming the Bush tax cuts on "joint complicity" by Dems and the GOP is absurd. Just in case you were out of the country at the time. :rolleyes:
You're poor at reading comprehension. Clocker made no such statement.

[pandy]

Companies are using TAX INVERSION to protect themselves against our 35% corporate tax. Ireland is one of the counties that is benefiting. It has a corporate tax of 12.5%. This is one of the main reasons why high taxes don't work. They politicians plan on a certain amount of tax revenue, but that's assuming that the rich don't move their money somewhere else.

[Capper Al]

Which is, if you cut taxes, businesses will have more money to spend on growing their business and workers will make more money.

Well, David Cay Johnston of Al Jazeera America looked at that theory. He looked at the IRS statistics for tax returns from 2000 through 2012. Adjusting for inflation and population growth, he learned the following. All figures are 2014 dollars.

In 2000 the average American family brought home $67,973. The following year-after George Bush took office-that number dropped to $63,637. A loss of ($3,925). in 2002 average income was ($6,004) lower than in 2000 and in 2003 the drop was ($6,440). In only two of the twelve years did an American family's income exceed what it had been in 2000.

Overall, American families lost $6,600,000,000,000 over the twelve year period. That's $6.6 trillion. If those folks paid only 10% if that income in taxes, the government would have collected $660,000,000,000.


http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/economy-bush-taxcutsgrowthjobs.html

Don't confuss them with the facts. Good post.

[Capper Al]

Companies are using TAX INVERSION to protect themselves against our 35% corporate tax. Ireland is one of the counties that is benefiting. It has a corporate tax of 12.5%. This is one of the main reasons why high taxes don't work. They politicians plan on a certain amount of tax revenue, but that's assuming that the rich don't move their money somewhere else.

This speaks to why we need a value added tax.

[horses4courses]

Companies are using TAX INVERSION to protect themselves against our 35% corporate tax. Ireland is one of the counties that is benefiting. It has a corporate tax of 12.5%. This is one of the main reasons why high taxes don't work. They politicians plan on a certain amount of tax revenue, but that's assuming that the rich don't move their money somewhere else.

Ireland's unemployment rate is close to twice that of ours.
They have a long history of giving tax breaks to foreign investors,
along with any number of examples where it benefitted the
foreign company at the expense of the local economy.

[Valuist]

Bush took office in January, 2001. The recession started in March, 2001. Please explain what policies Bush enacted in January and February that resulted in a recession in March.

Hint: that recession is largely attributed to Federal Reserve policy for the previous year or more that significantly increased interest rates.

Double dog hint: It generally takes a minimum of a quarter or two for any change in public policy to have a measurable impact on the economy.

The recession may have technically started in March 2001, but the real start was March of 2000, when the dot.com bubble started to implode.

[Valuist]

This speaks to why we need a value added tax.

Absolutely. Then we get rid of all personal income taxes.

[Boris]

Blaming the Bush tax cuts on "joint complicity" by Dems and the GOP is absurd. Just in case you were out of the country at the time. :rolleyes:


What was the final score on this one? I was out of the country.

Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

[boxcar]

I can't eait to see what -0bama leaves the next pres...

We probably never will. BO will contract with a large fleet of septic tank pumpers that will covertly, under the cover of dark, transport as much of his excrement away as possible.

Boxcar
P.S. Code name for this top secret covert operation will be BO Stinks.

[mostpost]

You're poor at reading comprehension. Clocker made no such statement.
He said exactly that. He didn't use the words "Joint complicity," but that is what he meant. Clocker was saying that the Democrats supported Bush's policies. They did not. The majority of Democrats voted against both tax cuts. Don't forget, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress the first six years of the Bush Presidency. And don't forget Democrats are much more reluctant to use the filibuster.

[Clocker]

He said exactly that. He didn't use the words "Joint complicity," but that is what he meant.

Trying to read minds again, when you can't seem to read what I actually write. What I said was "joint complicity of the politicians on both sides of the aisle in damaging an economy that remains a mess today."

What both sides were guilty of was continuing to run up huge deficits and huge increases in the debt and not engaging in any kind of comprehensive tax reform to accommodate the tax cuts. This included several huge supplemental spending bills to fund the wars in the Middle East that passed nearly unanimously, were off the books, and were entirely deficit funded.

Clocker was saying that the Democrats supported Bush's policies.

I would call a near unanimous approval of $87 billion supportive of Bush's policies. And it was a voice vote, so the Dems didn't have to answer to their voters.

[mostpost]

The biggest problem with any kind of tax reform in this country is that a comprehensive reform requires cuts in tax rates, streamlining of the tax code (reduction and eventual elimination of special interest treatment), and fiscal responsibility.

Now there is a sentence that says nothing. What do you mean by special interest treatment? Do you mean churches? Unions? Corporations that get special tax breaks to move to another state or country?

Excuse me, but I am going to assume I know what you are talking about. One of us should!

You seem to want very low rates with no exemptions and deduction. You don't seem to realize that tax policy is not only to raise revenue. It is also to control behavior. So we charge higher rates, then we use credits and incentives to encourage the behavior we desire.

We give a tax credit to someone who expands his business and hires more workers. We allow a deduction based on the installation of new safety equipment. The person pays a higher tax rate, but ends up paying the same or less because of what he has contributed to the society.

Under your plans the business man pays lower taxes and has no incentive to use that extra money for anything but Mercedes and summer homes.

[Clocker]

Excuse me, but I am going to assume I know what you are talking about. One of us should!

The usual playground rant with personal gibes in lieu of facts. I am devastated by your wit. :rolleyes:

[fast4522]

An interesting read, not enough objectivity for some to understand.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/10/america-economic-woes-why-jobs-are-scarce-wages-low/

[dylbert]

Positive economics versus normative economics argument here. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/difference-between-positive-normative-economics.asp

If I haven't previously stated this fact, I will now that mostpost is an idiot. This thread is based on bad normative economics piece. Author takes certain economic information and make

[delayjf]

We give a tax credit to someone who expands his business and hires more workers

In previous threads you advocated high corporate tax rates as an incentive for businesses to hire more employees for the sole purpose of reducing their tax burden. Now you want to give tax credits for the same purpose.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there was no budget surplus. And I find it funny that you direct you tax cut wrath at Bush’s tax cuts but seem to gloss over the fact that Clinton’s great economy was brought on by tax cuts.

[AndyC]

In previous threads you advocated high corporate tax rates as an incentive for businesses to hire more employees for the sole purpose of reducing their tax burden. Now you want to give tax credits for the same purpose.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there was no budget surplus. And I find it funny that you direct you tax cut wrath at Bush’s tax cuts but seem to gloss over the fact that Clinton’s great economy was brought on by tax cuts.

Back in about 1994 there were projections for budget deficits "as far as the eye could see". Clinton and the Congress are given way too much credit for balancing the budget when in reality the internet boom provided an unforeseen jolt to the economy and tax revenues. Conversely when the bubble broke Bush (and tax cuts) were blamed as the problem.

[pandy]

Totally agree. Clinton was one of the luckiest Presidents ever. Bush got 9/11, which was partly the fault of the Clinton administration, Obama got a recession, which was partly the fault of the Clinton administration. Clinton got the tech boom, which drove the economy, and he got credit for it, even though he had nothing to do with it.

[delayjf]

Back in about 1994 there were projections for budget deficits "as far as the eye could see". Clinton and the Congress are given way too much credit for balancing the budget when in reality the internet boom provided an unforeseen jolt to the economy and tax revenues. Conversely when the bubble broke Bush (and tax cuts) were blamed as the problem.

When they talk about the Clinton "budget surplus" what they referring to is the Public dept (bonds)., what they ignore is the inter-governmental debt, i.e. the money borrowed from social security.

The National Debt (combination of public and intergovernmental debt when up each year under Clinton, although it did come close to balancing one year due to the great economy.

[mostpost]

Back in about 1994 there were projections for budget deficits "as far as the eye could see". Clinton and the Congress are given way too much credit for balancing the budget when in reality the internet boom provided an unforeseen jolt to the economy and tax revenues. Conversely when the bubble broke Bush (and tax cuts) were blamed as the problem.
According to wikipedia, the dot com bubble took place from 1997 to 2000. During that period we added 11,628,000 jobs. In the first four years of Clinton's presidency we added 10,909,000. Hardly a dramatic difference. But, I understand. You guys just can't stand to give Clinton (or Obama) credit for anything.

Another question is what percentage of those eleven million plus jobs created in Clinton's second term were dot com related? It's called a bubble because it is based on excess speculation. Investors anticipated expansion that did not occur. I tried to find a report on job creation by industry, but the only one I could find only went back to 2006.

[fast4522]

I recall 1997 to 2000 at the multi national I worked for as if it were yesterday. I worked in the Mill/Aero division of the company and much could be viewed like a pipeline with a few years at the beginning of the pipe until what exited the pipe at full steam. Many programs making their way threw the pipe. Several divisions went on the chopping block during the Clinton tax hikes, one of our managers said of the tax hikes that they would cost jobs. They hired a new vice president in the for the other division and his charter was to outsource and convert as much of the company in percentage starting around that 1997 time frame. By the year 2000 the company shared with all of its employees the largest profit sharing checks it ever distributed. I recall the time between the twin towers has airline aircraft hitting tower one and tower two slamming into them on 9/11 we were having a layoff. Everyone who shifted to our division to help with our programs and capacity needs had no job waiting for them at the division they came from. Their jobs lost to new plants in the Philippines, China and other low cost regions. I am sure there are many who have similar clear as yesterday memory's. I could not agree more with post # 37.

[AndyC]

According to wikipedia, the dot com bubble took place from 1997 to 2000. During that period we added 11,628,000 jobs. In the first four years of Clinton's presidency we added 10,909,000. Hardly a dramatic difference. But, I understand. You guys just can't stand to give Clinton (or Obama) credit for anything.

Another question is what percentage of those eleven million plus jobs created in Clinton's second term were dot com related? It's called a bubble because it is based on excess speculation. Investors anticipated expansion that did not occur. I tried to find a report on job creation by industry, but the only one I could find only went back to 2006.

The internet boom caused tax revenues to increase dramatically. Companies were created, the creators and investors got rich and the governments prospered when stocks were sold. It was helped by Clinton's willingness to reduce cap gains taxes to 20%. Clinton as did Reagan had an ability to work with the opposition.

I am sure the internet boom created many new jobs. What company today doesn't have an IT specialist? It all started picking up momentum during the 90s.

[mostpost]

I recall 1997 to 2000 at the multi national I worked for as if it were yesterday. I worked in the Mill/Aero division of the company and much could be viewed like a pipeline with a few years at the beginning of the pipe until what exited the pipe at full steam. Many programs making their way threw the pipe. Several divisions went on the chopping block during the Clinton tax hikes, one of our managers said of the tax hikes that they would cost jobs. They hired a new vice president in the for the other division and his charter was to outsource and convert as much of the company in percentage starting around that 1997 time frame. By the year 2000 the company shared with all of its employees the largest profit sharing checks it ever distributed. I recall the time between the twin towers has airline aircraft hitting tower one and tower two slamming into them on 9/11 we were having a layoff. Everyone who shifted to our division to help with our programs and capacity needs had no job waiting for them at the division they came from. Their jobs lost to new plants in the Philippines, China and other low cost regions. I am sure there are many who have similar clear as yesterday memory's. I could not agree more with post # 37.
Were you drunk when you wrote this? It makes absolutely no sense.

[fast4522]

No not at all, makes perfect sense for the 18,000 of us who once worked there because we lived it. Of course it was the beginning of #37 I was emphasizing "I will now that mostpost is an idiot".

[hcap]

No not at all, makes perfect sense for the 18,000 of us who once worked there because we lived it. Of course it was the beginning of #37 I was emphasizing "I will now that mostpost is an idiot".You are about as lucid posting as you are tuba playing.

"I will now that fast is an idiot"

/o0z9jAfJDG4?

[fast4522]

Still kickin, just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvJzTrgOdE0

[davew]

I guess it is important to know what kind of tax cuts are being referred to -

Individual tax cuts should have had more money in peoples pockets to spend or turnover to stimulate the economy and keep small businesses around the country running - the extra money may have kept people in situations with bad mortgages/credit bills around another few months..

If you have no income source, the tax cuts didn't really help you.

[Tom]

Money earned is different from money stolen.
Taxes are money stolen. The less the better.
The governments at every level do far more than they should be doing,
Minimal government is good government.

The Ass Clown N Chief wants 4 billion to secure the border.

Hey ASS CLOWN - take it from somewhere else - like any foreign aid to anyone. WE the PEOPLE have given far too much already.

You dipstick moron.

[davew]

Money earned is different from money stolen.
Taxes are money stolen. The less the better.
The governments at every level do far more than they should be doing,
Minimal government is good government.

The Ass Clown N Chief wants 4 billion to secure the border.

Hey ASS CLOWN - take it from somewhere else - like any foreign aid to anyone. WE the PEOPLE have given far too much already.

You dipstick moron.


not quite $4 billion and not to secure the border, rather to feed them and bus/fly them around the country to spread them out, and pay the people who watch over them. 90,000 more expected in next few months

[fast4522]

For the life of me I do not understand why people are so thick between the ears. All around us negative impact of today's happenings, these very same occurrences will be felt and shared financially by not only the working but also by those retired. You foolish thinkers feel you that you can outrun the next bad wave or any political party can protect you are the ones on the cool aid. Now I can not predict exactly what will come about, but I am certain it will not be good. For the many who have had to take pay cuts, or how ever one would characterize more than one part time jobs just to get by. I can tell you with certainty political winds are not going to blow your way much longer. The percentage of global trade the United States Dollar holds will be less next year and that will be felt by all, and the following year a few percent less. This is something that NO ONE can outrun. And when there is a unwillingness by the United States Congress to impose more taxes, just exactly who will feel it?

[fast4522]

BIS chief fears fresh Lehman from worldwide debt surge

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10965052/Bank-for-International-Settlements-fears-fresh-Lehman-crisis-from-worldwide-debt-surge.html

[classhandicapper]

That study is beyond idiotic (as are most studies done with some sort of political motivation driving them). Unless you can control for every factor that impacts corporate earnings, employee incomes, hiring and firing decisions, economic activity, international trade etc... you can't measure the impact of tax cuts on investment, employee incomes, and employment at home.

You can however use common sense.

If you are a marginal company that is barely "cash flow break even" and you receive a tax cut that makes you cash flow positive, you have many options for the extra money. You can pay down debt, buy back shares, let it accumulate on the balance sheet for the future, buy another company, give bigger raises or bonuses to key employees so you don't lose them, expand your business faster etc.... At any given time what you do will be dependent on many factors.

However, you certainly aren't going to invest less, hire less, and lower wages because you have extra money.

At the margin, extra money in the hands of businesses will tend to increase savings and investment which in turn will help jobs, incomes etc...

This is so basic only a fool would argue with it.

It's called CAPITALism because CAPITAL is the lifeblood of the system. If you increase the stock of CAPITAL via savings (either people or businesses) you get more CAPITALism.

The mistake has been that government hasn't lowered it's consumption when it gave tax breaks. It borrowed even faster and shit it away.

[mostpost]

That study is beyond idiotic (as are most studies done with some sort of political motivation driving them). Unless you can control for every factor that impacts corporate earnings, employee incomes, hiring and firing decisions, economic activity, international trade etc... you can't measure the impact of tax cuts on investment, employee incomes, and employment at home.
Do you really believe that this study conducted by Al Jazeera has a political motivation, while studies or surveys conducted by Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute have none? Because studies by those organizations are constantly being cited as gospel around here.

You say that unless one can control for a myriad of factors, one can't measure the impact of tax cuts on investment, employee incomes, and employment at home. If that is the case, then why do you righties continuously and stridently insist that we must cut taxes. By your own admission, we can never know if doing so is an effective means of improving the economy.

[Clocker]

If that is the case, then why do you righties continuously and stridently insist that we must cut taxes.

The primary goal is to starve the beast. Everything after that is gravy.

[mostpost]

If you are a marginal company that is barely "cash flow break even" and you receive a tax cut that makes you cash flow positive, you have many options for the extra money. You can pay down debt, buy back shares, let it accumulate on the balance sheet for the future, buy another company, give bigger raises or bonuses to key employees so you don't lose them, expand your business faster etc.... At any given time what you do will be dependent on many factors.

However, you certainly aren't going to invest less, hire less, and lower wages because you have extra money.

At the margin, extra money in the hands of businesses will tend to increase savings and investment which in turn will help jobs, incomes etc...

This is so basic only a fool would argue with it.
I am no fool and I am going to argue with it. (Or about it.)
You list six things a person can do with extra money. The first four do nothing to grow the business or improve the economy. Paying down debt just means you have less debt. It does not cause anyone to buy your product. Without a customer base it does not matter how much product sits on your shelves.

Buy back shares? Doesn't that just give an inflated value to the stock. Maybe that works if you're a speculator trying to sell stock at an inflated price. What does it do to improve the business?

let it accumulate on the balance sheet for the future,
This is precisely my argument against the value of tax cuts as a stimulus. The businessman takes whatever extra money he receives from a tax cut and sits on it. No raises for the employees, no improved benefits, no increase in inventory, none of that.

buy another company
How does buying another company help the struggling company? If you can't run one company, what makes you think you can run two?

Finally, you get to raises and bonuses to employees. Even here you are not thinking of the employees. You are giving raises to some employees. Only those you are afraid of losing. Only because not giving those raises might cause you problems. The other employees who have worked hard for you? Screw em. They don't like it they can work somewhere else.

[mostpost]

It's called CAPITALism because CAPITAL is the lifeblood of the system. If you increase the stock of CAPITAL via savings (either people or businesses) you get more CAPITALism.
Therein lies the difference between you and me. I acknowledge the importance of capital, but also recognize the importance of labor. You think labor is an evil to be avoided at all costs.

[mostpost]

The primary goal is to starve the beast. Everything after that is gravy.
God help us if people like you get your way. We will be back to fourteen hour days. Back to children working in factories. Back to no overtime, no vacation pay. That is what you want, and I think you don't even realize it.

[Clocker]

You think labor is an evil to be avoided at all costs.

Do you make this stuff up?

Production requires labor and capital. A smart business uses the most efficient mix of both. Capital makes labor more efficient. That is why skilled labor earns higher wages when capable of using complex capital.

[mostpost]

Taxes are money stolen.
That is an idiotic statement. Taxes are the money we pay to the government for the services it provides us. You tip the waitress at the restaurant for the services she provides. Why is this any different?

Oh, wait a minute. You don't tip the waitress, do you? Why would I think you did? You want service at the restaurant for free. You want services the government provides for free. You are an anchor.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That is an idiotic statement. Taxes are the money we pay to the government for the services it provides us. You tip the waitress at the restaurant for the services she provides. Why is this any different?

Oh, wait a minute. You don't tip the waitress, do you? Why would I think you did? You want service at the restaurant for free. You want services the government provides for free. You are an anchor.

Cripes, you can do better than set yourself up for a scathing rebuttal about paying for what you want at the price you can afford among a nearly limitless number of options as opposed to being subjected to the whims of a government that seems to view its taxpaying citizens as an extension of their own campaign slush fund.

[reckless]

Clinton got the tech boom, which drove the economy, and he got credit for it, even though he had nothing to do with it.

Not only did Clinton have absolutely nothing to do with the tech boom, he did his very best to kill it!!

How ? Clinton went after the poster child of American technological know-how, the great Microsoft Corporation. He sued them claiming Microsoft violated anti-trust laws. Clinton claimed Microsoft had a monopoly with the Windows operating system and the Microsoft browser.

The lawsuit was a joke as well as Clinton, who is now and has always been as joke.

[Clocker]

That is what you want, and I think you don't even realize it.

Thank god I have people like you, with such incredible insight and analytic ability, to explain me to me.

P.S. Given your miserable failure as an online psychoanalyst, I think I'd better spell it out for you. The statement above is sarcasm.

[Clocker]

Taxes are the money we pay to the government for the services it provides us.

That's the way it is supposed to be. More and more, taxes are the mechanism for redistribution of wealth.

[mostpost]

That's the way it is supposed to be. More and more, taxes are the mechanism for redistribution of wealth.
There should be no need to redistribute wealth. The problem is that it is not being distributed fairly to begin with. Unless he is a union member, the wages of the worker are determined by the whim of his employer. Even the fairest minded entrepreneur will err in his own favor when it comes to setting wages. Some who are not so fair minded will take advantage of the worker, especially in hard times.

Of course this creates a larger problem by forcing all employers to cut or maintain wages in order to compete. Despite what you may think, I do not think that businessmen or entrepreneurs are inherently evil or greedy. There are those who are and others are forced to compete or perish. The most honorable of men want to feed their children.

You constantly complain about food stamps and welfare and medicaid and such. Do you know that WalMart employees cost taxpayers $6.2B in benefits last year? In the meantime, the five heirs of Sam Walton are each worth $20B or more. Besides belonging to the lucky sperm club, what did they do to earn that money?

[Clocker]

There should be no need to redistribute wealth. The problem is that it is not being distributed fairly to begin with. Unless he is a union member, the wages of the worker are determined by the whim of his employer.

Well said, comrade. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Whim? How many employees have you ever hired for private sector jobs?

Your "knowledge" of private sector jobs and wages seems to be based on reading the works of Karl Marx and Charles Dickens.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Besides belonging to the lucky sperm club, what did they do to earn that money?

Being a part of the sperm club is a loftier resume in explaining why they deserve the family money as opposed to the resume of those that you would presumably deem appropriate recipients.

[Clocker]

In the meantime, the five heirs of Sam Walton are each worth $20B or more. Besides belonging to the lucky sperm club, what did they do to earn that money?

What did a lottery winner do to earn that money? Maybe we should tax lottery winnings at 90%.

Sam Walton earned that money and paid taxes on it. It was his to do with as he wanted. How do you presume to claim higher moral authority about the use of the money than the man who earned it?

[classhandicapper]

Do you really believe that this study conducted by Al Jazeera has a political motivation, while studies or surveys conducted by Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute have none? Because studies by those organizations are constantly being cited as gospel around here.

You say that unless one can control for a myriad of factors, one can't measure the impact of tax cuts on investment, employee incomes, and employment at home. If that is the case, then why do you righties continuously and stridently insist that we must cut taxes. By your own admission, we can never know if doing so is an effective means of improving the economy.

I pay no attention to what Cato says, but I know Cato is correct more often than the socialists because socialists are mostly driven by idealism instead of basic economics.

I think we can and do know how to improve the economy long term. What we can't do is create a bunch of complex formulas to manage it perfectly in the short and long term (like the Fed and Federal government like to do), measure everything properly, and then prove it all to academics. It's all too complex for that, partly because human values, actions, and conditions change.

The reason I know tax cuts work without seeing a controlled study is because at core it's very basic math, very basic human behavior, and because I've been investing for decades and have seen how my own companies behave.

Give a business an extra dollar and there's only so many thing it can possibly do with it. Some of those things will DEFINITELY improve jobs and/or wages. They will do them because they will be driven to maximize their own self interest. A byproduct of their self interest is often in my best interests.

[tucker6]

How do you presume to claim higher moral authority about the use of the money than the man who earned it?
Your 20th century thinking isn't impressing Obama and his fandom.

[classhandicapper]

Your 20th century thinking isn't impressing Obama and his fandom.

There are people that believe their own values are superior to the values of others and that gives them the right to impose them on other people for the greater good. Others believe they should vote for their own interest even at the expense of others. The funny part about this is that there are people on both sides of the aisle that behave the same way, just about different things. And they both complain about the other side.

My experience is that it's not until someone tries to impose something on them that the flaw in their politics is exposed.

I have a good friend. He's generally moderate, but to the left of me. He was always fine with smoking laws and sin taxes, raising taxes for things he valued and agreed with etc...

When online poker was outlawed and they started confiscating accounts he suddenly understood the libertarian position. :lol:

[tucker6]

There are people that believe their own values are superior to the values of others and that gives them the right to impose them on other people for the greater good. Others believe they should vote for their own interest even at the expense of others. The funny part about this is that there are people on both sides of the aisle that behave the same way, just about different things. And they both complain about the other side.

My experience is that it's not until someone tries to impose something on them that the flaw in their politics is exposed.

I have a good friend. He's generally moderate, but to the left of me. He was always fine with smoking laws and sin taxes, raising taxes for things he valued and agreed with etc...

When online poker was outlawed and they started confiscating accounts he suddenly understood the libertarian position. :lol:
As I said recently, you and I think a lot alike. I enjoy your posts.

[NJ Stinks]

As I said recently, you and I think a lot alike. I enjoy your posts.

Ain't that the truth! :lol:

[tucker6]

Ain't that the truth! :lol:
I hope you learn from history before your end, but I don't hold out much hope. You are an ideologue, and conversation is difficult with such a one.

[classhandicapper]

Tucker6,

I have a new view on the best way to deal with the left.

I know their policies are eventually going to cause social chaos and either bankrupt the country, collapse the currency, or at a minimum cause severe economic turmoil in multiple markets. That's going to cause widespread severe hardship for the masses. We have the advantage in that we understand this and can position ourselves to not only survive it, but if very lucky/smart, possibly profit from it.

IMO it's too late to fix. All that's left is positioning oneself properly for anything and then waiting. The timing is impossible, but it can't be too far off now. Could be months, but at most probably 10 years.

Look at the bright side. Those that are taking us in this direction do not understand what's going on. So they will be the least prepared. That means they are also likely to come out of it the worst when it all hits the fan. Schadenfreude! Sad, but out of our control.

[Clocker]

Your 20th century thinking isn't impressing Obama and his fandom.

My thinking on this matter is more 18th Century, back when the Founders affirmed the natural rights of life, liberty and property. Taxes for anything more than the funding of the legitimate, enumerated powers of the federal government are unconstitutional, despite the twisted logic of many different SCOTUS decisions in the interim.

In particular, estate taxes and other mechanisms for redistribution of wealth are in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It is immoral to confiscate property based on the criteria that the owner did not earn it. It is irrational to try to justify it by using the Obama "principle" of too much money. On what moral ground does he presume to say "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money." Again, the incredibly pompous assertion that his opinion is morally superior to that of the owner of the money or property.

[NJ Stinks]

I hope you learn from history before your end, but I don't hold out much hope. You are an ideologue, and conversation is difficult with such a one.

I was just looking at the idea that you two think alike and therefore you like reading his posts. Struck me in a humorous way I guess.