Chicago in SHOCK: Mayor Flip Flops on Tax Hikes

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Chicago voters, who are wise, thoughtful people that never had any reason to believe that Obama's former chief of staff, now Mayor, Rahm "Deadfish" Emanuel would go back on his word that he would not support tax increases is now behind a $150 million dollar City Property Tax increase proposed by the notorious failing Chicago Public School system.

Ha! I know, right? A vote for Democrats is a vote for tax hikes. Period. It's a vote to pump more money into an already bloated bureaucracy every chance they get. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote to punish producers and subsidize parasites.

What Obama's former chief of staff, now Mayor of Chicago, Rahm "Deadfish" Emanuel said then:

"The taxpayers, as we know, feel nickeled–and-dimed as it relates to taxes, and I will not ask them to pay more for an inefficient government that is not delivering services on a more cost-effective basis,"

What Obama's former chief of staff, now Mayor of Chicago, Rahm "Deadfish" Emanuel says now:

"I have no tolerance for an overblown bureaucracy and I have no tolerance for inefficiency in the city budget, in other agencies, and I'm glad (school officials) followed the cut-and-invest strategy," said Emanuel in his first public comments since the school district unveiled its budget Friday. "I think they've made the tough choices."

Well would ya lookit that! PROBLEM SOLVED! The Chicago Public School system in one summer has transformed itself from an overblown bureaucracy, has trimmed all the fat to become the model of efficiency...but they need more money from taxpayers.

The mayor wants homeowners to pay about $84 more a year for public schools. The request comes at a time when Chicagoans are [already shelling out more due to a 66% hike in the IL State Income Tax], potentially facing a Chicago Transit Authority fare increase in the next year and watching the stock market drain their retirement funds.

Well, this should help create jobs!

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-cps-property-tax-20110810,0,2887159.story

Keep voting for these people, Chicago. Keep it up, Illinois. See where it gets you.

[Deleted]

Chicago has some major problems. I read in Businessweek (or Forbes) that it is less than a decade from running out of money to fund it's pensions.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

People look at me like I have two heads when I tell them Chicago is less than a decade away from being Detroit. They tell me about the diverse economy and how in Detroit it was all the auto industry and I respond by explaining that liberals are capable of destroying anything. Chicago is already dead. One should not make the mistake of thinking that the movement of the corpse is a sign of life.

[handyman2]

Seems like HIS HOHOR learned his lesson well while at the White House from the master of flip-flop.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I dunno- that's kind of a chicken - egg proposition there handyman2

[djAdvocate]

he has the meddle of Ronald Reagan, apparently.

[Deleted]

Ha! I know, right? A vote for Democrats is a vote for tax hikes. Period. It's a vote to pump more money into an already bloated bureaucracy every chance they get. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote to punish producers and subsidize parasites.

Democrats have a fairly simple strategy. Spend spend spend until there is no money & lots of bills. THEN you explain to the public that you have no choice but to raise taxes because all the money is gone (as a result of you spending it all....Duh!).

I wonder if Mr Average Citizen could do the same. Next time you get a bill for your mortgage just write them a nice note & say "Hey I got your bills but sadly last month I bought an electric car (& paid 78 thousand dollars for it) & I just don't have the money". I guess that you'll just have to let me pass this month. I will pay next month if I don't find something else I need.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2011 14:25:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Ha! I know, right? A vote for Democrats is a vote for tax hikes. Period. It's a vote to pump more money into an already bloated bureaucracy every chance they get. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote to punish producers and subsidize parasites.

Democrats have a fairly simple strategy. Spend spend spend until there is no money & lots of bills. THEN you explain to the public that you have no choice but to raise taxes because all the money is gone (as a result of you spending it all....Duh!).

I wonder if Mr Average Citizen could do the same. Next time you get a bill for your mortgage just write them a nice note & say "Hey I got your bills but sadly last month I bought an electric car (& paid 78 thousand dollars for it) & I just don't have the money". I guess that you'll just have to let me pass this month. I will pay next month if I don't find something else I need.

Or better yet, tell your employer-- Look, I know I haven't been doing that great a job. I'll try to do better. In the mean time, I'm going to need a new office, a better computer, a company car, and a raise.

[Deleted]

Or better yet, tell your employer-- Look, I know I haven't been doing that great a job. I'll try to do better. In the mean time, I'm going to need a new office, a better computer, a company car, and a raise.

I'm sure he would jump at that & give you a raise too!

The thing that gets me (because I don't understand) is that people understand that they couldn't spend like the government does. Yet they don't demand a higher standard from the government. Hell it doesn't seem like they care if the government has any standards.

[cme1201]

Aug 10, 2011 14:34:51 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Or better yet, tell your employer-- Look, I know I haven't been doing that great a job. I'll try to do better. In the mean time, I'm going to need a new office, a better computer, a company car, and a raise.

I'm sure he would jump at that & give you a raise too!

The thing that gets me (because I don't understand) is that people understand that they couldn't spend like the government does. Yet they don't demand a higher standard from the government. Hell it doesn't seem like they care if the government has any standards.

When demands for higher standards are asked for, you get, "You are going to lose your benefits, they (whomever is taking away money) are going to let you die in the street, they (see last) are trying to keep you down, they are not allowing you a chance to make yourself better."

Why would the average citizen demand higher standards when the politico's do everything to make those who would like changes seem like the next hitler/stalin combined.

(Please note: No where have I called out one side or the other THEY BOTH play this stupid game.)

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 14:25:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Ha! I know, right? A vote for Democrats is a vote for tax hikes. Period. It's a vote to pump more money into an already bloated bureaucracy every chance they get. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote to punish producers and subsidize parasites.

Democrats have a fairly simple strategy. Spend spend spend until there is no money & lots of bills. THEN you explain to the public that you have no choice but to raise taxes because all the money is gone (as a result of you spending it all....Duh!).

that is probably better in the overall scheme of things than the GOP approach, which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits, then approach the public and tell them that programs they consider essential have to be cut.

[Deleted]

which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits,

Actually they cut TAXES (not revenues) which they believe makes more revenue in the long term. I believe that it works, I'm sure that you don't. Sadly it's real hard to tell because so many things change & it could be different facts that make a difference. Either way though it is logical to me that cutting taxes gives people more money to spend, they spend it, companies make money, they hire more workers. The government gets more taxes from workers & from when people spend money. While that may not work, It's for sure that raising taxes on businesses & people does kill the economy.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits,

Actually they cut TAXES (not revenues)

same difference. they cut revenue by cutting taxes- specifically income taxes.

the fact that they made it up in the long term is immaterial. that revenue was lost, and it was lost at a higher cost than if it were lost today (inflation adjustment).

the right way to look at revenues is on a GDP basis. a discussion on that basis will take almost all other factors into account. our GDP share of revenue is at a 50 year low.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Either way though it is logical to me that cutting taxes gives people more money to spend, they spend it, companies make money, they hire more workers.

yeah, and we both know that this has worked SO WELL in the last decade- basically creating ZERO jobs during the entire stretch.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2011 16:10:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits,

Actually they cut TAXES (not revenues)

same difference. they cut revenue by cutting taxes- specifically income taxes.

the fact that they made it up in the long term is immaterial. that revenue was lost, and it was lost at a higher cost than if it were lost today (inflation adjustment).

the right way to look at revenues is on a GDP basis. a discussion on that basis will take almost all other factors into account. our GDP share of revenue is at a 50 year low.

Are you one of those people that doesn't believe in the Laffer Curve?

Cut taxes, grow the economy, raise revenue. It's a simple tactic that has worked every single time it has been tried. As you can see, the mere threat of raising taxes can slow growth.

President Obama could raise revenue by creating jobs with one simple move-- and it would start working IMMEDIATELY. No waiting: Simply announce that ObamaCare was a mistake and we're going back to the drawing board. Ask Congress to send him a simple one-line bill repealing it. Announce that he is making the Bush tax cuts permanent. As Congress to send him a simple bill stating that current tax rates are going to remain in place.

Then just sit back and watch.

But he can't.

He relies too heavily on throngs of amoral, uneducated, welfare-dependent, brutalised youngsters for his re-election.

[jkapp]

Aug 10, 2011 15:01:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2011 14:25:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Ha! I know, right? A vote for Democrats is a vote for tax hikes. Period. It's a vote to pump more money into an already bloated bureaucracy every chance they get. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote to punish producers and subsidize parasites.

Democrats have a fairly simple strategy. Spend spend spend until there is no money & lots of bills. THEN you explain to the public that you have no choice but to raise taxes because all the money is gone (as a result of you spending it all....Duh!).

that is probably better in the overall scheme of things than the GOP approach, which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits, then approach the public and tell them that programs they consider essential have to be cut.

What revenues fwere cut? TAXES were cut, but that is not necessarily the same thing. Cutting taxes may actually lead to more revenue and raising taxes may lead to lesser revenue...so they do not always flow in the same direction.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Raising taxes- especially when they're already at confiscatory levels as they are now in IL- costs the city revenue. There's a veritable exodus of business from Chicago right now. The economy is shrinking, the population of the state of IL is shrinking, unemployment is high, and the city and state are broke.

If nothing else, this should indicate that it's time to try it OUR way. Their way leads to Michigan. Our way leads to Texas, to Florida, to North Dakota, to any number of so-called "red states" that our flourishing.

It'd be one thing to come here and make these arguments if the liberal policy failure wasn't so evident, and if there were not such a contrast right now between failed blue states and thriving red states. But to make arguments for higher taxes, and to assert that it results in increased revenue borders on the insane in my opinion.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2011 16:12:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Either way though it is logical to me that cutting taxes gives people more money to spend, they spend it, companies make money, they hire more workers.

yeah, and we both know that this has worked SO WELL in the last decade- basically creating ZERO jobs during the entire stretch.

George W. Bush, for all of his failings, left office with a 5.7% unemployment rate and a AAA credit rating.

What has Obama's policy been? Where'd that get us?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oh, right- Obama quadruppled the deficit, unemployment has skyrocketed to 11.3% (the real unemployment rate if the labor pool was the same size it was when Obama was sworn in), and our credit rating has been down-graded for the first time since 1917.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 17:10:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 10, 2011 16:12:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, and we both know that this has worked SO WELL in the last decade- basically creating ZERO jobs during the entire stretch.

George W. Bush, for all of his failings, left office with a 5.7% unemployment rate

no he didn't. he left us with a 7.6% unemployment rate. and i am not here to toot Obama's horn. i am, however, here to criticize Bush at every given opportunity.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 17:13:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oh, right- Obama quadruppled the deficit, unemployment has skyrocketed to 11.3% (the real unemployment rate if the labor pool was the same size it was when Obama was sworn in), and our credit rating has been down-graded for the first time since 1917.

you are wrong on both counts. it never made it to 11.3%, i don't believe. the last time we had 11% unemployement was under Reagan, and it didn't stop him from getting re-elected, as i recall.

and Obama's current rate is far higher than 7.6%

Paul- you really have to start trying harder. i can't spend all day around here correcting your posts.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 16:37:27 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Aug 10, 2011 15:01:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is probably better in the overall scheme of things than the GOP approach, which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits, then approach the public and tell them that programs they consider essential have to be cut.

What revenues fwere cut? TAXES were cut, but that is not necessarily the same thing.

no, not necessarily. but i was not talking generally. i was talking specific to the so called "Bush Tax Cuts". if you want, i will cite the name of the actual bill, so that we avoid future confusion.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 16:21:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 10, 2011 16:10:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

same difference. they cut revenue by cutting taxes- specifically income taxes.

the fact that they made it up in the long term is immaterial. that revenue was lost, and it was lost at a higher cost than if it were lost today (inflation adjustment).

the right way to look at revenues is on a GDP basis. a discussion on that basis will take almost all other factors into account. our GDP share of revenue is at a 50 year low.

Are you one of those people that doesn't believe in the Laffer Curve?

i not only don't believe it. i think it is palpably absurd.

we can start with the 100% assumption. since our system doesn't work off fixed rates, but off marginal rates, the assumption that 100% top incremental rate would produce $0 in revenue is palpably absurd. there would be tax brackets beneath the 100% that would generate revenue. and it is ONLY the top incremental rate we are talking about.

but even if you DO believe in it, the second assumption is that the peak of the bell curve (T*) is at or below our rate today. however there is broad consensus that this is not true. most economist believe that the rate is at or above 70%, which means that raising taxes would increase revenues- which is precisely what happened under Clinton.

but the real crushing blow is OTA Paper 81, which analyzes the revenue effects of tax changes dating back almost a century. not only is the relationship not what most Lafferites presume (that we are to the RIGHT of T* on the curve) but the relationship for ALL MAJOR TAX CHANGES is precisely the opposite as predicted by that theory, which indicates that T* is not only to the right of current top marginal rates, but higher than rates were when Laffer proposed his theory.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 16:21:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Cut taxes, grow the economy, raise revenue. It's a simple tactic that has worked every single time it has been tried. As you can see, the mere threat of raising taxes can slow growth.

actually, neither of these "facts" are true.

re: economic growth:

during the (5) years following the three largest income tax decreases since WW2, GDP increased 15.6%

during the (5) years following the three largest income tax increases since WW2, GDP increased 15.6%

from this, we can gather than GDP is not especially sensitive to income tax increases. yet this canard is floated continually by the supply side worshippers.

insofar as revenue is concerned, OTA Paper 81 makes the case better than anyone has on either side of this debate, and it most certainly is not a case which supports the Laffer Curve (or at least that T* is anything less than 70%).

[Don Perignon]

Aug 10, 2011 16:10:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits,

Actually they cut TAXES (not revenues)

same difference. they cut revenue by cutting taxes- specifically income taxes.



The fact that people still can't discern the lack of difference between "taxes" and "revenue" is a singular indicator of how we ended up in this economic pit of despair.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2011 17:59:27 GMT -5 Don Perignon said:

Aug 10, 2011 16:10:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2011 15:25:26 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

which is to cut revenues until you have huge deficits,

Actually they cut TAXES (not revenues)

same difference. they cut revenue by cutting taxes- specifically income taxes.

The fact that people still can't discern the lack of difference between "taxes" and "revenue" is a singular indicator of how we ended up in this economic pit of despair.

no, the fact that some people don't seem to get that cutting taxes doesn't balance budgets is why we are in the mess we are in.

it is a pity that most people have such a poor sense of economics that they fall for such nonsense. but clearly they do.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Are you one of those people that doesn't believe in the Laffer Curve?

In the real world, the Laffer Curve is a bell curve, where at some point, less taxes collected means less revenue taken in. Imagine that! In Palmbeachpaulia, the Laffer Curve is a hyperbola (like y = 1/x ) that goes to infinity as taxes go to zero. Now I know why it's called a hyper-bola and why y = 1/x is an inverse function. Did I also mention the lack of focus? Oh, and our tax rates have been the lowest in fifty years, so we're not in danger of hitting the cusp any time soon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbola

Either way though it is logical to me that cutting taxes gives people more money to spend

Yes it does give people more money to spend. But ever hear of savings accounts? How about investing? How about high cost luxury items? How about putting it into foreign whatever? That "giving more money" works for poor and middle class people, but as the people get richer (and need the money less), it has more chances of not really stimulating the economy and more of it disappearing to who knows where.

companies make money, they hire more workers

Instead of reiterating that Conservative Fairy tale, look into the real world. Companies are making record profits and laying people off. Sorry, but heads of businesses aren't sugar daddies who "pass the money" to hire more people just because they got more. They will if there's a demand for workers, not because they've got big hearts that thinks everyday is Christmas.

Next time you get a bill for your mortgage just write them a nice note & say

And before you get your next paycheck, write your boss a nice note, telling him you want a lower rate, but expect more money. Hey, that seems to be the logic of lowering taxes.

Democrats have a fairly simple strategy. Spend spend spend until there is no money & lots of bills

That's the Republican strategy unless there's a Dem in the White House. Then it's still spend, spend, spend for things they want, but it's cut, cut, cut where they don't until the economy is ruined, ruined, ruined, then blame, blame, blame the Democratic President.

while at the White House from the master of flip-flop

Romney was at the White House? But reality be damned, as long as Obama is the punchline, huh?

Cut taxes, grow the economy, raise revenue. It's a simple tactic that has worked every single time it has been tried.

Yeah, isn't the Bush tax cuts going gangbusters on the unemployment now? Or maybe you mean it worked every time in some far off, magical land of Conservatiapartia. Is it any wonder John McCain likened Tea Party people to hobbits? ( "John McCain derides 'tea party hobbits' in debt ceiling fight articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/nation/la-na-mccain-tea-party-20110728 )

President Obama could raise revenue by creating jobs with one simple move

... and then the Tea Party hobbits slew Mordor and lowered taxes to zero, thereby giving the government infinite revenues; then they all lived happily ever after. The end.

it is a pity that most people have such a poor sense of economics that they fall for such nonsense

Or just elementary logic. But if we wish real hard ....

[djAdvocate]

note to the board: the government gets revenue from taxes. period. they don't sell shampoo. they don't do massages. taxes. t.a.x.e.s. so, when discussing government, revenue and taxes are synonyms. don't fall for it when Obama, or anyone else, does it.

any government "fee" is also a tax, btw. you can think of it anyway you like, but that is what it is. that would include bridge tolls, DMV "fees", etc.

[djAdvocate]

Quote:President Obama could raise revenue by creating jobs with one simple move


... and then the Tea Party hobbits slew Mordor and lowered taxes to zero, thereby giving the government infinite revenues; then they all lived happily ever after. The end.


MK- this magical thinking bullshit really must come to an end. i don't give a CRAP what anyone "believes". i only care what can be proven.

the Laffer Curve is palpably absurd because it rests on two assumptions, both of which are false (or utterly lacking evidence, if you prefer):

the first assumption is that we are to the RIGHT of T*. there is no proof of that whatsoever, and substantial proof to the contrary.

the second assumption is that people will actually modify their earning behavior to avoid taxes. in terms of income tax, there is absolutely no proof of THIS whatsoever, either.

until we can get past those two basic facts, i see no reason to entertain the meat of this theory.

[cereb]

Oh I see, another liberal bashing democrat bashing thread. Ho hum. SSDD. Tell me, do you guys ever get board of beating the same dead horse? That thing reeks at this point.