Another help for those mortgages underwater.

MSNBC? Why didn't you just link the Democratic Party website. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Dylan Radigan is the best repoter out there. You are arguing about the messanger not the message. 2% of TARRP had been paid back. Yet you argue that the system is just fine.

Yes and when you only discuss FEDERAL taxes it is disingenuous. Originally Posted by WTF

Not when the subject is the Federal government.

Poor people pay taxes...that was my point.

I never said they didn't I said they dont pay any Federal taxes which is what pays for all the crap coming out of Washington -- not fees to license a car.

It is a tax on owning a car.

Technically no. It is a fee for using a car on public roadways. If you have a truck that you only use on your farm, you don't have to license it. If you drive it on a public road you do. By your logic you would say a parking fee at the beach is a tax.

Dylan Radigan is the best repoter out there. Originally Posted by WTF

Well he might be the best repoter out there, but he sucks as a reporter. I've never heard of him before. Has he been studying under Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck?

Not when the subject is the Federal government. Originally Posted by pjorourke

It was Federal taxes that was being discussed....and you know most people do not understand that there are more to taxes than just federal. Even in this forum people think these people do not pay taxes. Thet do, just not federal taxes.

I never said they didn't I said they dont pay any Federal taxes which is what pays for all the crap coming out of Washington -- not fees to license a car. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well by them paying for local government it keeps from the FEDERAL government from having to pay for it. Somebody is going to pay for these services. Does it really matter what enity that the tax you are paying goes to? It is no longer yours. You might want to have more control if it is local but that does not change the fact that poor people pay taxes.

Technically no. It is a fee for using a car on public roadways. If you have a truck that you only use on your farm, you don't have to license it. If you drive it on a public road you do. By your logic you would say a parking fee at the beach is a tax. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now isn't that politics at its finest. A truck used on a farm isn't subject to the same fee...even though the farmer is using an ag exempt that city folks do not get. So rural America has a tax exemption that the rest of us do not get. A hidden tax on all the rest of us so that the tax exempt farmer can prosper. Nothing wrong with it as long as everyone is aware that some folks...usually some that a bitching the loudest are recieving huge tax breaks!

A parking fee that goes to the government is a tax. Land that is the in the public domain is being used to collect money for whatever the local government sees fit. What do you call that? Oh yea a Technicality! Because technically people do not have to use it. Damn then cap and trade is not a tax since technically you do not need energy!

Well he might be the best repoter out there, but he sucks as a reporter. I've never heard of him before. Has he been studying under Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck? Originally Posted by pjorourke

No...he would eat up and spit out those two idiots.

What color is the sky in your world WTF?

I think a carbon tax that would raise enough money to significantly reduce the deficit would be even harder to sell to the American public than a VAT. No one in the world has such a tax with draconian enough rates to make a difference. At least with a VAT, politicians can say, "Look over there! Everbody else is doing it. We have to get in the game!" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Not to mention that I've yet to hear a proposal for a carbon tax which wouldn't do bad, bad things to the energy market.

And the guys who don't live in the real world and cluelessly apply static analysis always grossly overestimate how much you can collect from the affluent by jacking up tax rates to confiscatory levels. A 50% federal bracket would mean that some taxpayers in states that impose a state income tax would be in the 60% or higher marginal tax bracket. Don't you think many of them would start doing something in the way of tax avoidance?

Too right. It's the nature of the beast. Taxation has a negative effect on consumption - just look at cigarette taxes. About three years ago I wrote an article on politicians complaining that school funding was decreasing due to portions of that funding coming from inflated cigarette taxes. While they gave lip service to cigarette taxes being a way to make people go healthy, they were shocked - shocked! - that revenues were declining year after year with the new taxes. And since that's how they planned to fund educational programs, they were caught with their pants down and no money in the kitty. (Smoke! It's for the children.)

Failure to learn from experience seems to be a requirement for the job. Income and consumption are not nearly as inelastic as assumed when politicians start counting all the money they plan to rake in.

Look what happened in the 1970s, when the marginal tax rate was 70%. The tax code shoved hundreds of billions of dollars into malinvestment such as tax shelters that made no real economic sense other than to reduce the tax burden on its investors. Is the act of diverting capital from its most productive uses good for anybody? (And the extremely high tax rate didn't really raise all that much money. Hardly anyone actually paid it.) When you start jacking up rates on the taxable income of high earners, you'll be surprised how quickly some of it pulls a disappearing act, one way or another.

IIRC, that's a direct reason Reagan was so applauded for increasing revenues by lowering taxes. People in the higher brackets rescued their money from stagnation and put it to work now that it wasn't simply going to be pissed down a government rathole. Granted, I was four years old when he took office so my understanding might not be perfect.

Part of the problem today is that a lot of capital has gone on vacation. If we persist by stacking up even more bad economic policies, some of that capital might simply choose to extend its vacation.

Two words: Capital controls.

Your point as I understand it is that even though taxes on those in the lower income ranges haven't been imposed as yet, they're coming one way or another. People in that part of the income strata will eventually be taxed as highly as those in typical European social democracies.

Exactly. I remember trying to explain to a stripper (long story) why the stimulus checks weren't largesse. The lightbulb of understanding finally went on when I told her it was as if the federal government had taken out a loan from the Chinese in her name, at an interest rate they determined, without her say.

"Ah. So... I have to pay that money back?"
"Yep."
"That sucks."

In oversimplified terms, all these unfunded liabilities are little more than "No money down! No payments until 2011!" As a business owner, you already know that merely because the payments are delayed doesn't mean the liability isn't on the books.

Current US politics is predicated on the dream that there really is such a thing as a free lunch. The rich will pay for it. Sin taxes will pay for it. Insurance companies will pay for it. Your employer will pay for it. Nothing that will affect you, perish the thought!

People seem blissfully unaware of this issue. A VAT will obviously create headwinds for the economy that will last for many years. It's going to be a painful adjustment. But doing nothing at all and just letting the deficit crisis fester would be manifestly worse. The first time a Treasury auction didn't go well could cause a level of panic that would make the late 2008 financial near-meltdown pale in comparison.

Damn skippy. The fallout would be biblical. And perhaps because I am such a pessimist these days, I don't see even the VAT buying us out of this end game. China just had a failed auction and they're our largest creditor. Our spending as percent of deficit is 11%; Greece's is 12.4. I think we'll be there before a VAT can do any effective good.

IIRC, that's a direct reason Reagan was so applauded for increasing revenues by lowering taxes. People in the higher brackets rescued their money from stagnation and put it to work now that it wasn't simply going to be pissed down a government rathole. Granted, I was four years old when he took office so my understanding might not be perfect.


. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

I wasn't four (though I wish I were). So you THINK that Reagan lowered taxes and presto tax revenue just grew. You hear that Captain Midnight? These are who I make my remarks about that wonderful misnomer.

You wanna some understanding of how Reagan really pulled that out of his ass go to this link.


http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control =488
axes
Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

In oversimplified terms, all these unfunded liabilities are little more than "No money down! No payments until 2011!" As a business owner, you already know that merely because the payments are delayed doesn't mean the liability isn't on the books.

Current US politics is predicated on the dream that there really is such a thing as a free lunch. The rich will pay for it. Sin taxes will pay for it. Insurance companies will pay for it. Your employer will pay for it. Nothing that will affect you, perish the thought!


. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Where were you back in 2003...when Bush enacted those tax cuts? That was the era of a free lunch!

You are bitching about paying for his excess' Simply amazing.

WTF, I have a hard time accepting the veracity of a site which purports to educate on economics, and yet can't spell Greenspan's name. Also, I can't figure out if the implication that chairman of the Federal Reserve is a lifetime appointment is deliberate misinformation or just idiocy.

So you THINK that Reagan lowered taxes and presto tax revenue just grew. You hear that Captain Midnight? These are who I make my remarks about that wonderful misnomer.

Play nice. I RECALL being taught that as a college freshman fourteen years ago, covering a time when my father had all his hair and I wasn't allowed to watch Scooby-Doo because it was too scary. I've already acknowledged my disadvantage versus those who were adults during the Reagan administration and subsequently have a better understanding and recollection of his fiscal policies.

I've already acknowledged my disadvantage versus those who were adults during the Reagan administration and subsequently have a better understanding and recollection of his fiscal policies. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

The fact that you are looking at that decade without being emotionally involved with the politics makes it easier for you to see what actually happened.

WTF, I have a hard time accepting the veracity of a site which purports to educate on economics, and yet can't spell Greenspan's name. Also, I can't figure out if the implication that chairman of the Federal Reserve is a lifetime appointment is deliberate misinformation or just idiocy.

Play nice. I RECALL being taught that as a college freshman fourteen years ago, covering a time when my father had all his hair and I wasn't allowed to watch Scooby-Doo because it was too scary. I've already acknowledged my disadvantage versus those who were adults during the Reagan administration and subsequently have a better understanding and recollection of his fiscal policies
. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

And I have a hard time accepting talking about economics when after reading the site you insist on talking about spelling! LOL Come on Emily, you can't have it both ways. You can't purport to speak on a subject that you then say you really were to young to speak of that subject.

As to playing nice, I love all you Tea Party folks! Keeps me on my toes and if I'm lucky my backside every no and again!

PJ, Ronnie was full of shit then and no amount of rewriting history will change that. I'm not emotional about the eighties! Damn, I'm an old bull, not a young one. Emotion is hardly part of the equation.

I wasn't four (though I wish I were). So you THINK that Reagan lowered taxes and presto tax revenue just grew. You hear that Captain Midnight? These are who I make my remarks about that wonderful misnomer. Originally Posted by WTF

I know that your comments were primarily directed at someone else -- but since you brought my name into this, let me just interject something:

I never claimed that tax revenues grew as a result of those tax cuts, either in this thread or in that never-ending thread in the HPF. There were clearly other factors and lots of "moving parts" during that time, such as the vanquishing of the Great Inflation and a return to relatively sound money..

Don't toss up straw men or insinuate that I said something I didn't, like you did so many times in that other thread. Read and pay attention before posting false, fatuous, or idiotic comments. (If that's even possible.)

I know that your comments were primarily directed at someone else -- but since you brought my name into this, let me just interject something:

I never claimed that tax revenues grew as a result of those tax cuts, either in this thread or in that never-ending thread in the HPF. Don't toss up straw men or insinuate that I said something I didn't. Read and pay attention before posting false, fatuous, or idiotic comments. (If that's even possible.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You read what I said.

I said that my comments earlier were to college freshmen fouteen years removed that believed that crap! LOL (Sorry Emily, you aren't the only one believes that caca)

So I wasn't talking about you....but earlier you had commented about my comment and I just was letting ya know that there are people that believe that crap hook line and sinker.

I know you are an old bull yourself! Calm down. I wasn't insulting ya. Now lets do what is important in life and mosy down this here hill and check out some heifers this weekend!



I would ask PJ to join us (he's damn sure old enough!) but he is going to brush up on Dylan Radigan this weekend. Hopefully , he''ll give up that caca about Bush TARP good, Obama TARP bad.Emily I would ask you to join us but you aren't old nor a Bull......Hey on second thought as they say on The Price is right, "Come on Down!"

I never claimed that tax revenues grew as a result of those tax cuts, either in this thread or in that never-ending thread in the HPF. There were clearly other factors and lots of "moving parts" during that time, such as the vanquishing of the Great Inflation and a return to relatively sound money. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That being said, it is a well known economic fact that supply increases with price. So if you raise the value of labor/income production by cutting the cost of taxes, you get more of it. So all other things being equal, cutting taxes does increase economic activity. Whether that increase in economic activity is enough to off set the lost tax revenue is a subject for the Laffer Curve disciples to debate. It also has to do with how you cut taxes. marginal rate cuts having a MUCH stronger effect than rebates and other one-time cuts which have little long term effect.

I would ask PJ to join us (he's damn sure old enough!) but he is going to brush up on Dylan Radigan this weekend. Originally Posted by WTF

Dream on. I have much more important things to do -- like sorting my sock drawer.

I know you are an old bull yourself! Originally Posted by WTF

Old bull, hell!

I'm a young stud! I can post a picture here if you like. (Well, OK, it was taken around 1975.)

It's OK, WTF. I occasionally slap someone around a little bit when they post something that's really ridiculous. We're all friends here.

Please just remember to refrain from putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head (or misrepresent what I said or tell me or others what I believe).

Deal?