Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 4:59:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2011 18:28:39 GMT -5
xmascookie I'm currently out of karma, but your on the list. thanks. back at ya!
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 24, 2011 18:28:52 GMT -5
...another kiss for cookie...
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 24, 2011 19:39:31 GMT -5
The current issue should not be who or why it was started. The current issue is who and how do we get off this tread mill of spending more than we have coming in. If the common person did this they would be in bankruptcy and have their credit cut off. The government is no different only larger and quite frankly acting more irresponsible. Yes we have a debt problem going way back but that is no excuse for continuing to exacerbate the problem. Washington must show some common sense and face the issue head-on otherwise we will be in a situation of no way to recover in the very near future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 19:53:33 GMT -5
this is rational for a consumer, and it precisely why the financial crises of 1929 in the US, 1980 in Japan, and 2007 in the US are SO HARD to get out of: it is a death spiral of illiquidity. what Boehner and other Republicans have been saying is absolutely 100% the opposite of the truth. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire. so, the longer you sit on your nest egg, afraid of the future, the longer that they will do the same. but make no mistake about it. YOU are leading. THEY are following. there is only one way that i know of to break the cycle. the influence of tax policy on that decision is absolutely NIL. This must be one of those things that I often hear about but have never seen. While I was responding, the quote was changed. Makes it a bit difficult to play fair. i changed the response after re-reading what you said. i try to nip potential misunderstandings in the bud, rather than allowing them to fester without any intervention. i don't know what any of that has to do with fair play.
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Jul 24, 2011 19:56:25 GMT -5
Instead of changing a post as it stands, quote it and comment upon it.
What you originally said is what I was replying to. It no longer reads that way. That opens the door for a boat load of misunderstanding.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 19:56:35 GMT -5
don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility.
i never claimed that you could not.My bad for assuming. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire.Well, unless the wealthy create some jobs so people have money to spend, we're shit out of luck, nonsense. the wealthy are even LESS likely to spend it, because, unlike the working poor and middle class, they actually have choices they can make with their disposable income. personally, i am using mine for debt repayment. that is not going to stimulate the economy or create jobs for anyone, either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 19:58:17 GMT -5
Instead of changing a post as it stands, quote it and comment upon it. What you originally said is what I was replying to. It no longer reads that way. That opens the door for a boat load of misunderstanding. i had to go to work, Malarky. i am just shutting down now. sorry to confuse you, but again, it had NOTHING to do with fairness. i felt it better to TRY and get it right than do nothing. i am sorry if you feel otherwise.
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Jul 24, 2011 19:58:21 GMT -5
Fair play is when we both have the same amount of marbles at the beginning of the game. If I lose some or win some along the way, that's fine. It's when the rules get changed in the middle that I complain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 20:02:13 GMT -5
And the way the government hemorrhages money, I don't see this as a viable source of growth.
it certainly was in the 30's
We need to feel comfortable to take risks without worrying about the other shoe dropping. It would be nice if our country was headed in a clear, intelligent direction. I'm not interested in consuming anything else the government is offering. I can't afford it. what other shoe? the DOD certainly doesn't want to see any cuts in spending. neither does the medical industry- since about 50 cents of every dollar comes from federal spending. the 70 million people the get a government check don't want to see any cuts in spending. neither do city, state, and local governments. so, just who is it would would BENEFIT from these cuts?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 20:04:10 GMT -5
Fair play is when we both have the same amount of marbles at the beginning of the game. If I lose some or win some along the way, that's fine. It's when the rules get changed in the middle that I complain. again, i wasn't trying to game you by adding to my post. i was trying to actually address your point. in other words, i was trying to do YOU a favor- not myself. if i failed to do so, then forgive me.
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Jul 24, 2011 20:13:54 GMT -5
Truce. You're intent was different from my understanding. I still don't agree with you however I find the government to be wasteful, removed from reality and in need of serious streamlining. And I'm reluctant to toss any more money at it. My personal experience tells me that fiscal responsibility isn't always pretty, but it is worthwhile.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 24, 2011 21:01:57 GMT -5
As you would say, eliminate the variables that are statistically insignificant and you come back to the tax and other economic policies of GWB leading to a very short recession in the beginning of the last decade. That is in stark contrast to this current recession - largely due to Obama consistently talking out of both sides of his mouth. Business owners are sitting tight until there is clarity.
Government policies can't restrict economies and grind them to a halt? Most business owners would disagree.
You keep hanging your hat on OTA 81. I've read it; you're not unique and pointing to a paper and pretending to be more intelligent than you are does not make your opinion any more valid.
I'll leave you with the words of the author(s) of the paper:
Being a person that wants to rely on statistics so heavily, it should not surprise you that just a couple of the "choices" being different could have come up with very, very different figures in this paper.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 22:47:54 GMT -5
Truce. You're intent was different from my understanding. I still don't agree with you however that is fine. i like disagreement. that is why i post here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 22:49:19 GMT -5
As you would say, eliminate the variables that are statistically insignificant and you come back to the tax and other economic policies of GWB leading to a very short recession in the beginning of the last decade. That is in stark contrast to this current recession - largely due to Obama consistently talking out of both sides of his mouth. Business owners are sitting tight until there is clarity. Business owners are sitting tight waiting for demand to pick up. actually, in my business, they are not waiting at all. we had record sales and profits last year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2011 22:53:15 GMT -5
Government policies can't restrict economies and grind them to a halt? Most business owners would disagree. i try not to talk in absolutes. i am sure that, in the abstract, some policies WOULD grind business to a halt. like, for example, if the government wanted immediate control of all businesses.You keep hanging your hat on OTA 81. I've read it; you're not unique and pointing to a paper and pretending to be more intelligent than you are does not make your opinion any more valid. i never claimed to be intelligent. but since you seem insecure about it, let me assure you that i am no smarter than anyone else here, and probably considerably stupider than some.
furthermore, i am totally uninterested in personal battles with anonymous posters. i don't know anything about you, and you don't know anything about me. i find it best to not presume anything other than what i read on this board. therefore, i take what i read at face value, and work from that. i am an idea person. ie- i tend to mistake women for men on this and other boards and vice versa because i simply don't care, nor do i think it has any impact on what opinions he or she may have, or the merits thereof.
what i HAVE claimed is that the paper is authoritative on the issue of the revenue effects of taxation. by "authoritative", i mean "more detailed and thorough than anything else i have read" and certainly more authoritative than quoting the stats from the CBO which i am quite familiar with, and meaningless to the analysis.
to conclude, i am only interested in arguing the merits of the paper, not in tooting my horn or mocking you, ok?I'll leave you with the words of the author(s) of the paper: Being a person that wants to rely on statistics so heavily, it should not surprise you that just a couple of the "choices" being different could have come up with very, very different figures in this paper. so, since you apparently read the paper (kudos to you)- what conclusions did you draw from reading it (particularly Table 2 on Page 16)? or did you summarily dismiss it because of this disclaimer?
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 25, 2011 12:37:09 GMT -5
our debt keeps getting bigger, because the word "no" is not compatible with politics.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:01:09 GMT -5
our debt keeps getting bigger, because the word "no" is not compatible with politics. it seems like for the last three years i have been pretty much hearing "no" constantly. but perhaps i am listening to a different station.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:10:05 GMT -5
Total US revenues by year: 2000 - $3.675 tr 2001 - $3.557 tr 2002 - $3.299 tr 2003 - $3.440 tr 2004 - $3.891 tr 2005 - $4.243 tr www.usgovernmentrevenue.comFacts don't agree with you, like usual. i see- so those figures were adjusted for all variables other than tax rates? in other words, you accounted for inflation? you accounted for background economic growth? you accounted for changes in birth and death rates? you accounted for employment? no. you didn't. and therefore, you are conflating ONE SINGLE VARIABLE (top incremental rates) with all of those other things. please don't lecture me about facts until you have read OTA Paper 81 and understand what it is saying. TYIA for your consideration. Isn't that the same as saying the tax cust cost 1.6T though? They are assuming that if taxes were not reduced, they would have received the same level of economic activity to bring in 1.6T in revenue, which is pure horse shit...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:17:56 GMT -5
I don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility. i never claimed that you could not. however, i would argue that damaging your credit rating today when you could just as easily save it, and get your house in order, is a profoundly stupid thing to do, and irresponsible as well, if you expected other people to pay for your petulance.I've managed to do that on a small scale. Part of the reason I'm reluctant to put more of my hard earned money into the economy is that I don't feel confident that we're heading in an intelligent direction. this is rational for a consumer, and it precisely why the financial crises of 1929 in the US, 1980 in Japan, and 2007 in the US are SO HARD to get out of: it is a death spiral of illiquidity. what Boehner and other Republicans have been saying is absolutely 100% the opposite of the truth. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire. so, the longer you sit on your nest egg, afraid of the future, the longer that they will do the same. but make no mistake about it. YOU are leading. THEY are following. there is only one way that i know of to break the cycle. the influence of tax policy on that decision is absolutely NIL. Not quite...taxes on business flow through to the end customer - higher prices leads to less purchasing power, which means less consumerism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:19:06 GMT -5
i see- so those figures were adjusted for all variables other than tax rates? in other words, you accounted for inflation? you accounted for background economic growth? you accounted for changes in birth and death rates? you accounted for employment? no. you didn't. and therefore, you are conflating ONE SINGLE VARIABLE (top incremental rates) with all of those other things. please don't lecture me about facts until you have read OTA Paper 81 and understand what it is saying. TYIA for your consideration. Isn't that the same as saying the tax cust cost 1.6T though? They are assuming that if taxes were not reduced, they would have received the same level of economic activity to bring in 1.6T in revenue, which is pure horse shit... actually, it is not pure horseshit. during the five year period following the three largest tax decreases since WW2, the economy expanded 15.6% during the five year period following the three largest tax INCREASES since WW2, the economy expanded .........15.6% there is absolutely no evidence that tax increases hurt OR help the economy. however, to answer your question more specifically, one might imagine that a good model would take into account the presumption you just made to test that theory, and to eliminate that variable.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 25, 2011 13:20:13 GMT -5
it seems like for the last three years i have been pretty much hearing "no" constantly. but perhaps i am listening to a different station
what have you heard "no" to?
more bailouts? more spending? more debt? more war? you might be hearing 'no', but doing "no more" , has not been happening.
every decision gets some "no" and some "yes", but all we have been doing is "YES".......and we will again with more debt, as the ceiling will get raised and we will visit this issue again, but the next time, will be even worse..........
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:21:14 GMT -5
this is rational for a consumer, and it precisely why the financial crises of 1929 in the US, 1980 in Japan, and 2007 in the US are SO HARD to get out of: it is a death spiral of illiquidity. what Boehner and other Republicans have been saying is absolutely 100% the opposite of the truth. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire. so, the longer you sit on your nest egg, afraid of the future, the longer that they will do the same. but make no mistake about it. YOU are leading. THEY are following. there is only one way that i know of to break the cycle. the influence of tax policy on that decision is absolutely NIL. Not quite...taxes on business flow through to the end customer - higher prices leads to less purchasing power, which means less consumerism. what do you mean by "taxes"? do you mean PROFIT TAXES? if so, this statement is totally false. profit taxes are, by definition, taxes that are NOT passed on to the consumer, because they are neither part of costs of goods sold OR overhead.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:23:20 GMT -5
i find it very interesting how this house of cards works.
if you assume that the government is incapable of stimulating demand AND you assume that taxes take away from economic growth, THEN it makes sense to tax everyone at 0% and let the free market handle everything.
however, both of these statements are false. the 30's are a good counterargument. the 90's are another good counterargument. the 50's are a third good counterargument. in fact, there are very few good arguments in FAVOR of this view.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:24:11 GMT -5
And the way the government hemorrhages money, I don't see this as a viable source of growth.
it certainly was in the 30's
We need to feel comfortable to take risks without worrying about the other shoe dropping. It would be nice if our country was headed in a clear, intelligent direction. I'm not interested in consuming anything else the government is offering. I can't afford it. what other shoe? the DOD certainly doesn't want to see any cuts in spending. neither does the medical industry- since about 50 cents of every dollar comes from federal spending. the 70 million people the get a government check don't want to see any cuts in spending. neither do city, state, and local governments. so, just who is it would would BENEFIT from these cuts? The people actually footing the bill for the DOD spending, medical spending, and govenment checks: the taxpayers. Which, because of crazy progressive government policy is majority higher income earners - but some of us lower/middle income earners still pay a pretty penny in taxes...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:25:08 GMT -5
it seems like for the last three years i have been pretty much hearing "no" constantly. but perhaps i am listening to a different stationwhat have you heard "no" to? i am having trouble thinking of anything that i have heard "yes" to.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:27:06 GMT -5
what other shoe? the DOD certainly doesn't want to see any cuts in spending. neither does the medical industry- since about 50 cents of every dollar comes from federal spending. the 70 million people the get a government check don't want to see any cuts in spending. neither do city, state, and local governments. so, just who is it would would BENEFIT from these cuts? The people actually footing the bill for the DOD spending, medical spending, and govenment checks: the taxpayers. Which, because of crazy progressive government policy is majority higher income earners - but some of us lower/middle income earners still pay a pretty penny in taxes... how so? our tax rate as a % of GDP is at a post WW2 low right now. iow, taxpayers have not paid less for their government in THREE GENERATIONS. seriously, i think we, as a nation, have lost all perspective. we want to pay less, but we are already paying way less than we have, and running up huge deficits. no, i think everyone loses from these cuts OTHER than our grandkids. they win. i will admit that. and i love the fact that we are looking out for them, for once. but don't think for a second that this means anything but pain for the rest of us.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:38:04 GMT -5
Not quite...taxes on business flow through to the end customer - higher prices leads to less purchasing power, which means less consumerism. what do you mean by "taxes"? do you mean PROFIT TAXES? if so, this statement is totally false. profit taxes are, by definition, taxes that are NOT passed on to the consumer, because they are neither part of costs of goods sold OR overhead. Have you ever owned a business? Large and small business alike look at bottom lines...when looking at periodic statements, businesses will look at EBITDA which, yes, does not take into account the tax...however, the net income/loss of a company is ultimately a very valuable number. To maintain a positive profit level, price and fee structures are raised, added, changed, etc. If a company wishes to maintain a certain level of profitablility, and also maintain good cash flows, taxes play a HUGE part of this. For instance, our company had to make a 1st Qtr and 2nd Qtr estimate payment for over $100k each...you don't think that played a HUGE factor in how we managed other expenses, equipment purchases, fee structures, growth plans, and so on? The company had to manage to have over $100k in cash at the end of each quarter while still satisfying vendor payments, payroll, commissions to our salespeople, etc, and you don't think that plays a factor in business/pricing decisions? ??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:42:55 GMT -5
what do you mean by "taxes"? do you mean PROFIT TAXES? if so, this statement is totally false. profit taxes are, by definition, taxes that are NOT passed on to the consumer, because they are neither part of costs of goods sold OR overhead. Have you ever owned a business? i own three of them. i bought my first one in 1992.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:46:07 GMT -5
i find it very interesting how this house of cards works. if you assume that the government is incapable of stimulating demand AND you assume that taxes take away from economic growth, THEN it makes sense to tax everyone at 0% and let the free market handle everything. however, both of these statements are false. the 30's are a good counterargument. the 90's are another good counterargument. the 50's are a third good counterargument. in fact, there are very few good arguments in FAVOR of this view. Not quite...there needs to be some government - and no they do not stimulate demand and yes they take away from economic growth. However, it has to be balanced to the current economic times - there has to be small, limited growth of government during good times and no growth, to a small reduction in bad economic times. However, govenment only seems to be able to function in one direction = massive growth AT ALL TIMES! If you look at government right now, they should bot be growing, yet they are...the only thing hindering its growth is the poor revenues coming in from the fractured economy, but it still grows. And its things like Obamacare which grow it even more at the worst times...its those types of stupid policies that end up crippling an already fragile economic recovery. It's Roosevelt all over again.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2011 13:51:19 GMT -5
The people actually footing the bill for the DOD spending, medical spending, and govenment checks: the taxpayers. Which, because of crazy progressive government policy is majority higher income earners - but some of us lower/middle income earners still pay a pretty penny in taxes... how so? our tax rate as a % of GDP is at a post WW2 low right now. iow, taxpayers have not paid less for their government in THREE GENERATIONS. seriously, i think we, as a nation, have lost all perspective. we want to pay less, but we are already paying way less than we have, and running up huge deficits. no, i think everyone loses from these cuts OTHER than our grandkids. they win. i will admit that. and i love the fact that we are looking out for them, for once. but don't think for a second that this means anything but pain for the rest of us. Somebody has to take the pain...the previous generations didn't feel compelled to do so for us, that's for damn sure. In this way we can show them what they should have done and ask why they left it for us to deal with?? Personally, I feel the baby boomers should get hit with as much pain as possible as they seemed to be the greediest, most selfish group to come out of this country so far. But we'll see how the X/Yer's turn out in the coming decades...
|
|