JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 6th December 2012, 06:25 PM   #41
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bohemian Grove
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by jj View Post

ETA: And, of course, with you, like most Rovian dissemblers, it's always about 'attach the opponent', 'define the opponent', and never, EVER address the real issue.

And you just got caught doing it again. Outright, unjustifiable defamation in the name of Rove.
LOL, go look in a mirror and then spew this drivel, it will at least make sense then.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 06:47 PM   #42
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I'm disappointed in most Republicans for ignoring evidence that keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I'm disappointed in Obama for not cutting a little bit more spending, especially military spending.

Leave the tax cuts for everyone making less than $150,000/yr, cut military spending by 20% over the next 5 years, close various tax loopholes which allow large corporations to pay no taxes or promoted shipping jobs overseas, close additional tax loopholes which disproportionately benefit the rich, slightly reduce the benefits and or increase the retirement age for social security over the next 5 years, implement some of the proposed savings methods proposed by either party concerning medicare/medicaid.

I have other proposals that really aren't a part of the discussion such having a new tax on any home you purchase after your first. The same goes for an individual purchasing additional land above a certain acreage (excluding land used for farming).
Your changes would, quite frankly, destroy this country. I for one would certainly bail from here if it starts going the way you want. Pushing out people like myself is certainly shooting yourself in the foot as I've brought millions of dollars of economic activity to this country, including a huge amount of this being exports to other countries (currently more than 50% of our revenue is ex-us).

How many jobs have you created this year?
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:04 AM   #43
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Johnson City, Tennessee
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by jj View Post
Why don't we notice that the offer to avoid the fiscal cliff deliberately tries to tax
the middle class out of existence without raising taxes on the insanely rich?

Because the middle class doesn't matter any more. Thirty years ago before the
Reagan Revolution I'm sure I could meet with middle class people around the
town, but now they're very sparse. See what my congressman said on the issue.

"According to a new report from the White House, taxes on middle class families
will increase by $2,200 per year, resulting in a loss of $200 billion in consumer
spending." — Phil Roe

If we take the latter number and divide it by the former we get the total number
of middle class families – just under 91,000. Compare that with the total number
of families, somewhere around 100 million in the United States, that gives us
a ratio of a thousand to one.

So why not tax them extra?

A 1100 billion dollar deficit divided by $200 billion gives a multiplier of 5.5.
We need only tax them an average of $12,100 each to pay off the national
debt. But one might object that's too much money for them to pay, but my
congress informs me of their tax bracket.

"Likewise, it is our responsibility as members of Congress to ensure that
hardworking, middle-class families do not see their taxes increased in
the New Year when about 40% of their total income already goes towards
taxes." — Phil Roe

Consulting the Income Tax Tables I get the following formula:

(Income * 35%) - $26065) / Income = Percentage

A little rearranging and we get the following formula:

Income = $26065 / (35% - Percentage)

After deducting 8% for social security, sales, property, and other taxes, we find
that the middle class families earn on average $868833 a year. An extra $12,100
in taxes won't kill them.

But what about Roe's economic argument earlier?

The economy would shrink by $1100 billion. But Instead of making loans to the
government that piles on useless debt, the money would reappear in the form
of new private loans to businesses and individuals that would stimulate economic
growth. An extra $1100 billion here, an extra $1100 billion there, and pretty soon
you're talking real liquidity.

So...

The middle class in thirty years from now will become a historical curiosity,
wiped out by the forces of innovation and globalization, but we can use them
today to build a better future.
__________________
GENERATION ∞: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:07 AM   #44
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” - Karl Rove
Thank you for the subtle admission you are doing exactly that.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:12 AM   #45
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Trust me, I would never attach you.
Oh, look, I got a new keyboard. You caught me. Oh, tempura, oh, morels!
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:17 AM   #46
stevea
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I'm disappointed in most Republicans for ignoring evidence that keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.
There were no special tax cuts for the wealthy, that's partisan spin. You really need to read the content of the Bush2 2001, 2003 bills in more detail and stop listening to your partisan sources.

After 10 years of Dems screaming that Bush2 tax cuts were only for the wealthy, then when they are about to expire Dems suddenly start screaming about the harm to lower and middle-income ppl when they expire. Hypocrisy and mendacity know no bounds.

I am NOT in favor of using every change in tax policy as a Left/Progressive attempt to heap more of the social burden of society on any specific group they happen to hate. Nor to exempt their favored groups from some level of taxation. There is no valid reason to shift the burden of taxes. I say let all the Bush2 cuts expire, and let the Dems use this as a basis to return to the mythical idyllic Clinton era.

The Bush2 tax cuts were a direct response to the post Dot.com bubble, recession that Bush2 inherited from your "Saint Clinton". The first was in the works before 911. I would argue that 10years was too long for any recession fighting measure and <5yrs is the reasonable cutoff, same for Obama's fiscal stimulus. There is a lot to dislike abt Bush2 fiscal policy - and oddly the same sorts of things than make Obama fiscal policy even worse. Stranger yet - most partisans on Left or Right seem blind to the folly of one or the other of these two budget-busters, and sensitive to the other.


Quote:
I'm disappointed in Obama for not cutting a little bit more spending, especially military spending.
Agreed, but it will happen if ppl realize the new tax load is quite burdensome. Another good reason to spread the pain evenly.

Quote:
Leave the tax cuts for everyone making less than $150,000/yr, cut military spending by 20% over the next 5 years, close various tax loopholes which allow large corporations to pay no taxes or promoted shipping jobs overseas, close additional tax loopholes which disproportionately benefit the rich, slightly reduce the benefits and or increase the retirement age for social security over the next 5 years, implement some of the proposed savings methods proposed by either party concerning medicare/medicaid.
So you are in favor of making even modestly successful ppl pay the entire tax burden ultimately, and chasing every business offshore. ? Brilliant plan. The main problem w/ the US Federal tax system is that too few of voters pay anything besides (a fraction) their own retirement and medicare plans. It's easy to demand more when someone else pays ... right up until there is no one else to pay.

There may well be a few biz loopholes, but what most Dems call a loophole are common international recognized business expenses taken as a deduction against profits. You buy $M of materials, you pay $L for labor, you sell the product and make $R revenues, you buy $NC of new capital equipment, you sell $OC of your old capital equipment.. Then your gross profit is
(R + OC) - (NC+M+L)
and you are only taxed on profit. If you'd like to reduce those numbers after the minus sign, you'll be buying everything from foreign sources. I suppose it's pointless to explain the obvious to those burdened with ignorance and blinded by biz-hate.



Quote:
I have other proposals that really aren't a part of the discussion such having a new tax on any home you purchase after your first. The same goes for an individual purchasing additional land above a certain acreage (excluding land used for farming).
So for example if you buy a hovel right out of college, then every home after has an extra tax burden. Great way to discourage building and movements of population and efficient use of human capital.

Why is it so hard to foresee the obvious knock-on consequences of these suggestions ?

The Fed can't tax property w/o an amendment - so that's a 10 year plan at best. Plenty of time for ppl to emigrate.

Last edited by stevea; 7th December 2012 at 09:27 AM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:48 AM   #47
stevea
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Solitaire View Post
[...]
"According to a new report from the White House, taxes on middle class families
will increase by $2,200 per year, resulting in a loss of $200 billion in consumer
spending." — Phil Roe

If we take the latter number and divide it by the former we get the total number
of middle class families – just under 91,000. Compare that with the total number
of families, somewhere around 100 million in the United States, that gives us
a ratio of a thousand to one.

If ....
Utter fail !

$200 billion / $2200 = 90.9 MILLION families.
Not 91,000.

No offense meant. we can all make math gaffes, but this demonstrates a point, the very few ppl have a reasonable understanding of the magnitudes involved in this discussion. They (not you Solitaire) are listening for pre-digested analysis and not thinking through the facts.

===

The $1.2 Trl annual deficit represents ~ $3.9k of new debt per human in the US everey year, or almost $11k per tax filer.

Total Federal spending is around 3x times that figure or $33k per tax-filers per year. If you believe that is a sustainable level of government spending, they the burden is on you propose taxes that can extract $33k per average tax-filer, and that's just Federal taxes. You can knock ~20-25% off to account for biz tax.

The Fed spends ~$3.6Trl each year (~$11.6k per capita or 24% of GDP). If we add in state & local, government spending is $6Trl (~$19.3k per person or 40% of GDP).

Those numbers may rise substantially as as the boomers retire.

The numbers and fraction of the GDP controlled by government should shock and disturb anyone rational.

Last edited by stevea; 7th December 2012 at 09:55 AM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:10 AM   #48
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Utter fail !

$200 billion / $2200 = 90.9 MILLION families.
Not 91,000.

No offense meant. we can all make math gaffes, but this demonstrates a point, the very few ppl have a reasonable understanding of the magnitudes involved in this discussion. They (not you Solitaire) are listening for pre-digested analysis and not thinking through the facts.

===

The $1.2 Trl annual deficit represents ~ $3.9k of new debt per human in the US everey year, or almost $11k per tax filer.

Total Federal spending is around 3x times that figure or $33k per tax-filers per year. If you believe that is a sustainable level of government spending, they the burden is on you propose taxes that can extract $33k per average tax-filer, and that's just Federal taxes. You can knock ~20-25% off to account for biz tax.

The Fed spends ~$3.6Trl each year (~$11.6k per capita or 24% of GDP). If we add in state & local, government spending is $6Trl (~$19.3k per person or 40% of GDP).

Those numbers may rise substantially as as the boomers retire.

The numbers and fraction of the GDP controlled by government should shock and disturb anyone rational.
First off Steve, thanks for making these points because it frees up my time to go and be productive. You are 100% on the money.

If the middle class wants a bunch of entitlements taxes on them are going to have to go up from the close to zero they pay now, to 10-20k for families making middle class wages.

In Canada the top tax rate starts at just over 100k a year.
This is the kind of tax table you need if you want to live in the kind of country that spends this kind of money per capita.

canadian rates:
15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
29% of taxable income over $132,406.

Note there is no home mortgage deduction, child tax credit etc. Then add on provincial taxes and it's obvious the middle class in Canada is taxed far more than here.

Anyway, let's go off the cliff and see what happens. Our leadership has severely let us down by letting us get to the point of trillion dollar deficits with no end in sight. Frankly it's embarrassing and most of these jokes should be in jail. Anyone running a business like this would be out of business (unless of course they can get their government cronies to bail them out).
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:19 AM   #49
stevea
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by jj View Post
So, why are we all ignoring Grover Norquist the Traitor's intent to legislate the debt ceiling one week at a time unles "the president is being good to us".
Perhaps b/c Grover doesn't have a vote and his impact is no different from any other tax proponent from Katy Couric to Warren Buffet.


Quote:
Why don't we notice that the offer to avoid the fiscal cliff deliberately tries to tax the middle class out of existence without raising taxes on the insanely rich? Or that mortgage tax deductions are proposed to be removed, in order to further destroy the housing market in a cynical attempt to reduce everyone below the top 1% to financial serfdom?
None of the proposals by either party are aimed at the insanely rich. That is more partisan spin.

MFJ income of $250k is $100k per person and a nice stock return. The limit should drop to ~$180k of income for a single. Even many big company CEOs get most of the income from salary and therefore pay a floor of 28% on that. The stupidity of the Left is accepting Obama's conflation of "millionaires and billionaires" with the hundred-thousand-aires. A working couple doing nicely are conflated with Buffet taking tens of millions as unearned income - rubbish thinking. So yes, there are perhaps a few hundred Buffets that could usefully be addressed by tax revisions, but it will no dent in the deficits.

Mortgage deductions should be removed. Why should someone who intends to live in apartments be forced to subsidize your mortgage ? This is another version of chrony capitalism where the government meddles in markets to a bad end. Oddly the Left only sees unfairness as a part of class-warefare, and ignores blatent unfairness at hand.

Quote:
And all of this sold in a loony-tunes attempt at libertarianism that is generated in some back office in order to sell their policies to the people they intend to hurt the most.
There is nothing attractive to libertarians in any recent budget proposal. This is Rightish big government vs Leftish big government battle with no place for small government types at the table.


Quote:
ETA: Grover Norquist has harmed this country more than any elected representative, and all he does is control money that he has to hand out. Why don't we just recognizet his as bribery and prosecute the lot, please? I mean he's never even been elected, but he's telling the president what to do, with only 30% of the population even slightly behind him. Bribery is bribery, and it's time to just deal with it.

Indict Norquist.
Interest flavor of paranoia there; obsession with the irrelevant. Norquist has done nothing more encourage politicians, elected representatives, to take a pledge to their constituents. It's completed unenforceable. We see exactly the same behavior on Sunday talk shows when the interviewer asks the politician for their stand on some tax bill and encourages then by repeated questions how they would vote.

The Left really has a sick fetish on pushing more tax burden onto a small fraction of the population that they happen to hate, despite the fact that it won't make any significant difference in revenues. It's the height of demagoguery to elevate this nonsense issue to it's current place despite the serious fiscal position we are in. They are picking an argument over the color of a tie, while the building is afire.

We can and should have a public debate over what exactly constitutes a FAIR allocation of taxation, but this is not the time for it. Instead we should move forward with the current allocation and just make proportional increases until that debate is decided.

Last edited by stevea; 7th December 2012 at 10:21 AM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:39 AM   #50
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by jj View Post
Thank you for the subtle admission you are doing exactly that.
Oh look, somebody didn't bother to follow the link.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:35 PM   #51
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Perhaps b/c Grover doesn't have a vote and his impact is no different from any other tax proponent from Katy Couric to Warren Buffet.
Actually, he controls billions in campaign funds, and as such, the bribery committed with campaign funds gives him orders of magnitude more impact than a standard journalist.

This is all in the public eye and admitted. Why are you trying to avoid the facts?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:57 PM   #52
daenku32
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,111
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
None of the proposals by either party are aimed at the insanely rich. That is more partisan spin.

MFJ income of $250k is $100k per person and a nice stock return. The limit should drop to ~$180k of income for a single. Even many big company CEOs get most of the income from salary and therefore pay a floor of 28% on that. The stupidity of the Left is accepting Obama's conflation of "millionaires and billionaires" with the hundred-thousand-aires. A working couple doing nicely are conflated with Buffet taking tens of millions as unearned income - rubbish thinking. So yes, there are perhaps a few hundred Buffets that could usefully be addressed by tax revisions, but it will no dent in the deficits.
3% of income for amounts over $250,000 for "hundred-thousand-aires" is at average $11,250. You don't think a family making $600,000 a year can't afford that? Even after their taxes they make many times the income of average household.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Mortgage deductions should be removed. Why should someone who intends to live in apartments be forced to subsidize your mortgage ? This is another version of chrony capitalism where the government meddles in markets to a bad end. Oddly the Left only sees unfairness as a part of class-warefare, and ignores blatent unfairness at hand.
I do like the "fairness" spin. The chances are that the apartment dwellers are earning very low wages, so how about we even it out and give them a raise? Oh, and my state of Indiana, we get a rental deduction. There is no state deduction for mortgages. Guess we subsidize those renters.

And I don't know how you can justify hurting people with $50,000 in annual income but can't find the will to do the same for those "hundred-thousand-aires" because it would hurt them just so gash darn much.



Originally Posted by stevea View Post
There is nothing attractive to libertarians in any recent budget proposal. This is Rightish big government vs Leftish big government battle with no place for small government types at the table.
Of course not. The poor will still be able to eat. That can't possibly satisfy you.
daenku32 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:44 PM   #53
Fudbucker
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And how has that been working out lately? Oh, yeah: we had a mortgage crisis, and we now have an impending student loan crisis. But at least mortgages are used to acquire an asset, and usually that asset doesn't depreciate below the value of the debt. We have acquired no similar assets with our spending debt.
What if we staved off a depression?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:26 PM   #54
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by daenku32 View Post
3% of income for amounts over $250,000 for "hundred-thousand-aires" is at average $11,250. You don't think a family making $600,000 a year can't afford that? Even after their taxes they make many times the income of average household.
This is a red herring anyway because it's not enough to come anywhere close to healing the gigantic budget hole we have. Middle class people are severely undertaxed in the USA for the level of services they seem to be demanding. Don't take my word for it, go look at Canadian tax rates where the top rate comes in at $130k which is firmly in middle class territory in canada.

I'm fine, raise my taxes all you want and it's still not going to pay for the size of state we have. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

Quote:
I do like the "fairness" spin. The chances are that the apartment dwellers are earning very low wages, so how about we even it out and give them a raise? Oh, and my state of Indiana, we get a rental deduction. There is no state deduction for mortgages. Guess we subsidize those renters.
Note that fairness is not the same thing as a level playing field in most peoples mind. People seem to think fairness of outcome should be expected when that is ridiculous. I'm all for keeping the playing field level for everyone. For example a fair tax system would be to split up the budget amongst every person equally and bill them for it.

Quote:
And I don't know how you can justify hurting people with $50,000 in annual income but can't find the will to do the same for those "hundred-thousand-aires" because it would hurt them just so gash darn much.
Again, it won't come close to fixing budget problems we have. So go ahead and start there, but what next?


Quote:
Of course not. The poor will still be able to eat. That can't possibly satisfy you.
Do you honestly think that libertarians don't care about people? If that's your honest opinion that's utterly warped.
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:01 PM   #55
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What if we staved off a depression?

Only to cause an even bigger, worldwide one? Gosh, what a success!
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:24 PM   #56
Fudbucker
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Only to cause an even bigger, worldwide one? Gosh, what a success!
Things could definitely be better, but it appears that we're headed for more of a Lost Decade than anything else.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:52 PM   #57
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Johnson City, Tennessee
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
No offense meant. we can all make math gaffes, but this demonstrates a point, the very few ppl have a reasonable understanding of the magnitudes involved in this discussion. They (not you Solitaire) are listening for pre-digested analysis and not thinking through the facts.
Yep. Got the wrong number and reached the wrong conclusion.

Quote:
The numbers and fraction of the GDP controlled by government should shock and disturb anyone rational.
Looking at the charts – One and Two – we ought to avoid doing what we did in
2001/2002 and especially 2007/2008 and do more of what we did in 1991/1992.

As far as the federal deficit is concerned it looks like it'll become much less
of a burden soon, if this web site it to be believed: Federal Deficit By Year.
It's kind of weird to think the problem will fix itself. Hm.
__________________
GENERATION ∞: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 12:09 PM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What if we staved off a depression?
Even if that's what happened (and I'm not convinced it is), that doesn't fix the problem. We have a massive debt (which keeps getting bigger, too), and no equity with which to cover it. Which, again, makes it completely different than taking out a mortgage. However justified it might have been to add another $5 trillion in debt, it isn't sustainable.

We're screwed.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 12:14 PM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by Solitaire View Post
As far as the federal deficit is concerned it looks like it'll become much less
of a burden soon, if this web site it to be believed: Federal Deficit By Year.
It's kind of weird to think the problem will fix itself. Hm.
It won't fix itself. Those projections include GDP growth rates we are not likely to see soon. And if you only go out to 2017 you miss most of the coming entitlement spending explosion.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 01:00 PM   #60
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It won't fix itself. Those projections include GDP growth rates we are not likely to see soon. And if you only go out to 2017 you miss most of the coming entitlement spending explosion.
Of course, we could relax immigration rules, and the whole problem flies away in the breeze.

But no, we can't do that, oh, wait. We could if people weren't scared of people who were actually willing to work!
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 01:39 PM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by jj View Post
Of course, we could relax immigration rules, and the whole problem flies away in the breeze.
Evidence?

Quote:
But no, we can't do that, oh, wait. We could if people weren't scared of people who were actually willing to work!
I wonder who exactly you're trying to argue against. I have posted nothing about immigration policy within this thread, and doubt you actually know my opinion on the topic. It seems you're just burning straw here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 02:27 PM   #62
Fudbucker
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Even if that's what happened (and I'm not convinced it is), that doesn't fix the problem. We have a massive debt (which keeps getting bigger, too), and no equity with which to cover it. Which, again, makes it completely different than taking out a mortgage. However justified it might have been to add another $5 trillion in debt, it isn't sustainable.

We're screwed.
What about our natural resources? Becoming the world's top energy producer should generate a lot of revenue, no?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 03:13 PM   #63
The_Animus
Graduate Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1,500
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
There were no special tax cuts for the wealthy, that's partisan spin. You really need to read the content of the Bush2 2001, 2003 bills in more detail and stop listening to your partisan sources.

After 10 years of Dems screaming that Bush2 tax cuts were only for the wealthy, then when they are about to expire Dems suddenly start screaming about the harm to lower and middle-income ppl when they expire. Hypocrisy and mendacity know no bounds.

I am NOT in favor of using every change in tax policy as a Left/Progressive attempt to heap more of the social burden of society on any specific group they happen to hate. Nor to exempt their favored groups from some level of taxation. There is no valid reason to shift the burden of taxes. I say let all the Bush2 cuts expire, and let the Dems use this as a basis to return to the mythical idyllic Clinton era.

The Bush2 tax cuts were a direct response to the post Dot.com bubble, recession that Bush2 inherited from your "Saint Clinton". The first was in the works before 911. I would argue that 10years was too long for any recession fighting measure and <5yrs is the reasonable cutoff, same for Obama's fiscal stimulus. There is a lot to dislike abt Bush2 fiscal policy - and oddly the same sorts of things than make Obama fiscal policy even worse. Stranger yet - most partisans on Left or Right seem blind to the folly of one or the other of these two budget-busters, and sensitive to the other.
I never said the bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy. I said there is evidence that letting them expire for the wealthy won't hurt the economy or job growth according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Institute. Despite this many Republicans keep pretending otherwise. The same cannot be said for letting the tax cuts expire for everyone.

Quote:
So you are in favor of making even modestly successful ppl pay the entire tax burden ultimately, and chasing every business offshore. ? Brilliant plan. The main problem w/ the US Federal tax system is that too few of voters pay anything besides (a fraction) their own retirement and medicare plans. It's easy to demand more when someone else pays ... right up until there is no one else to pay.
The reason that so many people pay so little is because of their poor (and unfair in my opinion) compensation for their work. Instead of 100 people who work hard full time at a company getting an extra $3k a year, one person in that company gets a bonus of $300,000 even though it's quite unlikely that one person contributes as much to the company workload and success as those 100 people combined. Until the ridiculous wage inequality is dealt with we will continue to have massive population of people who pay little to no taxes. Otherwise just asking them to pay more in taxes will result in increased poverty and increased need for assistance just to get by, which is why you have such a huge burden on the government in the form of welfare and entitlement programs.

Quote:
There may well be a few biz loopholes, but what most Dems call a loophole are common international recognized business expenses taken as a deduction against profits. You buy $M of materials, you pay $L for labor, you sell the product and make $R revenues, you buy $NC of new capital equipment, you sell $OC of your old capital equipment.. Then your gross profit is
(R + OC) - (NC+M+L)
and you are only taxed on profit. If you'd like to reduce those numbers after the minus sign, you'll be buying everything from foreign sources. I suppose it's pointless to explain the obvious to those burdened with ignorance and blinded by biz-hate.
I'm talking about corporations making massive amounts of money and often paying less in taxes than people such as myself or Mitt Romney's secretary. Some even pay none at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news...axes/index.htm
Quote:
So for example if you buy a hovel right out of college, then every home after has an extra tax burden. Great way to discourage building and movements of population and efficient use of human capital.

Why is it so hard to foresee the obvious knock-on consequences of these suggestions ?

The Fed can't tax property w/o an amendment - so that's a 10 year plan at best. Plenty of time for ppl to emigrate.
I was a little vague so I can understand how what I said could be misinterpreted. If you sell that hovel and buy something else you won't have an extra tax burden. But if you keep that hovel and buy a second, or third, or fourth home then you pay extra taxes. The same is true for owning land above a certain acreage. The purpose of this is to discourage inflation of house and land prices such that the rich own tons of land and numerous homes while a big chunk of the population can't even afford any.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 03:55 PM   #64
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What about our natural resources? Becoming the world's top energy producer should generate a lot of revenue, no?
Don't be absurd. Global warming, remember?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 07:32 PM   #65
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I was a little vague so I can understand how what I said could be misinterpreted. If you sell that hovel and buy something else you won't have an extra tax burden. But if you keep that hovel and buy a second, or third, or fourth home then you pay extra taxes. The same is true for owning land above a certain acreage. The purpose of this is to discourage inflation of house and land prices such that the rich own tons of land and numerous homes while a big chunk of the population can't even afford any.
It's not a case of misinterpretation. It's a case of a ridiculous idea. Do you think this stuff through at all?
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:22 PM   #66
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
It's not a case of misinterpretation. It's a case of a ridiculous idea. Do you think this stuff through at all?
It sounds like "how to put farmers out of business and have only corporate ag"
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:24 PM   #67
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Evidence?
The problem is "not enough workers".

Q.E.D.

Your call for evidence is purely intended to mislead. Or were you unaware of the demographic issues?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 09:04 PM   #68
The_Animus
Graduate Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1,500
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
It's not a case of misinterpretation. It's a case of a ridiculous idea. Do you think this stuff through at all?
At least I have manners.

Several posts in this thread from you. None of them address the arguments and what you actually think is wrong with them. All of them instead ad hom and make it personal.

By the way, what is your grand plan to fix things?
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 09:10 PM   #69
The_Animus
Graduate Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1,500
Originally Posted by jj View Post
It sounds like "how to put farmers out of business and have only corporate ag"
That is already the norm.

Also...

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I have other proposals that really aren't a part of the discussion such having a new tax on any home you purchase after your first. The same goes for an individual purchasing additional land above a certain acreage (excluding land used for farming).
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 11:35 PM   #70
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by jj View Post
The problem is "not enough workers".

Q.E.D.
And a flood of unskilled labor into a job market that cannot utilize much of it is going to help... how?

Quote:
Your call for evidence is purely intended to mislead.
You say that every single time. Next time, try a new excuse, like your dog ate it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 11:46 PM   #71
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And a flood of unskilled labor into a job market that cannot utilize much of it is going to help... how?
Again, the evidence does not match your dismissive, misleading summary.

There is a clear fit between most of the people who want to work here and the jobs available.

Apparently this isn't good enough for you?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 11:49 PM   #72
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You say that every single time. Next time, try a new excuse, like your dog ate it.
When you stop making irrelevant demands, calls for evidence already in evidence, etc, I will stop exposing your unethical rhetorical misconduct. Until then, I would suggest that you don't try to evade this by calling the exposure of your misconduct "excuse".
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 02:54 AM   #73
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by jj View Post
Again, the evidence does not match your dismissive, misleading summary.
Again, what evidence?

Quote:
There is a clear fit between most of the people who want to work here and the jobs available.
No, actually, there isn't a clear fit at all. And although our current immigration policy is porous, many people who want to work here are not, in fact, here at all. Can you show that there are jobs ready and waiting for them?

Quote:
Apparently this isn't good enough for you?
Your word alone is most definitely not good enough for me.

Originally Posted by jj View Post
When you stop making irrelevant demands
Asking you to support your claims is irrelevant? You beclown yourself yet again.

Quote:
calls for evidence already in evidence
Except that it isn't.

Quote:
etc, I will stop exposing your unethical rhetorical misconduct. Until then, I would suggest that you don't try to evade this by calling the exposure of your misconduct "excuse".
I would suggest you don't try to evade the responsibility to support your position with baseless accusations of "unethical" conduct. But I don't think you know how to do anything else.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 10:04 AM   #74
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,751
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
Your changes would, quite frankly, destroy this country. I for one would certainly bail from here if it starts going the way you want.
[church lady voice]We really like ourselves, don't we?[/church lady voice]

If we did what animus suggested, taxes would be lower than they were 15 years ago, and I don't recall the country being destroyed at that time.
__________________
Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 12:35 PM   #75
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
[church lady voice]We really like ourselves, don't we?[/church lady voice]

If we did what animus suggested, taxes would be lower than they were 15 years ago, and I don't recall the country being destroyed at that time.
I'm talking about the ridiculous taxes on things like buying land he was proposing. The real social engineering type stuff.

To me the difference between the two parties on taxes is a pointless discussion. They are both in the same general ball park. As I've already stated if people want the level of benefits they seem to be voting for taxes do need to go up.

And as someone who is an immigrant and literally exports millions of dollars of locally produced technology I add a tremendous amount of value to this country by being here, whether you want to believe that or not.

If I wanted to play games with this stuff it would be trivial to direct all of exported revenue to an offshore entity and avoid a ton of taxes (this is what all of the big corps do right now). Relocation would be fairly tractable as well.

So you can sit here and tell me I'm full of myself but the fact is that I'm a outlier on the contribution curve. Why shouldn't my opinion count more than joe average on things like economic policy that effect me but not him?
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 01:43 PM   #76
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I would suggest you don't try to evade the responsibility to support your position with baseless accusations of "unethical" conduct. But I don't think you know how to do anything else.
You endlessly demand "evidence" that is already in the public sphere.

It's a game for you. You know your position has been tried and failed, but you continue to argue for it via demands for evidence already in the public sphere, and not in an obscure place, either.

You're simply posing.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 01:44 PM   #77
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
So you can sit here and tell me I'm full of myself but the fact is that I'm a outlier on the contribution curve. Why shouldn't my opinion count more than joe average on things like economic policy that effect me but not him?
Because both of you need to eat and have a safe place to sleep.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 04:08 PM   #78
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,997
Originally Posted by jj View Post
You endlessly demand "evidence" that is already in the public sphere.
You made the claim, the burden is on you to back up your claim. Referring to "the public sphere" does not suffice.

Quote:
It's a game for you. You know your position has been tried and failed, but you continue to argue for it via demands for evidence already in the public sphere, and not in an obscure place, either.
And your continued refusal to back up your position when (according to you) a citation would be easy to find... are we to take that as something other than a game for you?

You have no credibility here, jj. Your pattern is always to make hit and run claims, never back up your position, and simply whine when asked to provide evidence for or even a simple definition of what you say.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 04:43 PM   #79
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have no credibility here, jj.
As usual, "define the opponent". Bzzzt. Failed again.

You don't WANT me to have any credibility, because I trivially demolish your ridiculous economic positions, I'll grant you that, but frankly, you've got nothing, and yes, it's perfectly reasonable to point to what is already public knowlege when you play the dishonest game of demanding proof for something already in evidence, and in evidence just about everywhere and every place in this country.

Sorry, but the average joe is smart enough to see right through your insults.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 05:01 PM   #80
The_Animus
Graduate Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1,500
Originally Posted by jj View Post
You endlessly demand "evidence" that is already in the public sphere.

It's a game for you. You know your position has been tried and failed, but you continue to argue for it via demands for evidence already in the public sphere, and not in an obscure place, either.

You're simply posing.
To be fair jj if you make a claim it is up to you to provide evidence. Telling others to do it themselves or that it is in the public sphere isn't the way it works here.

All that aside, you spend 20x more time making posts like this than it would take to just find and post your evidence. It should be apparent to you that no matter how many times you post like this no one is going to go out and look up the information for you. Even IF someone were just playing a game, why do you continue to play back? At some point you need to ask yourself whether this approach is getting you anywhere and whether it might be in your own best interest to abandon it in favor of just posting your evidence.

Not looking to argue about this, just trying to be helpful.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.

Last edited by The_Animus; 9th December 2012 at 05:04 PM.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.