By yukon dave @ 29:

I have heard many talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue with Arthur Laugher when he says “if you tax someone 100% they stop working”. Somewhere before 100% they move their corporations to Dubai (AKA Haliburton) or they move assets outside of the country.

I’ve heard many people talk about closing the jails as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue that we should arrest people? If you arrest 100% of the people, they will not be free. Somewhere before 100%, they will flee your jurisdiction.

Kurt Vonnegut had a short story about a society where they started locking everyone up. Does anyone remember the name?

The jail analogy is somewhat related. Obviously no jails is just as bad as no taxes. Obviously locking everyone up is just as bad as taxing everyone at 100%. The question is the proper level of locking people up and the proper level of taxing them.

I would argue that with the war on drugs we’re locking up way too many people, and also diverting way too many people to a life of crime in other areas. Government likes to act to levels of excess when it comes to jails and taxes. A less intrusive government would be better in both areas.

Rate this comment: 0  0

how come you didn’t mention all those factors when you said w/o any qualifications that tax increases hurt business hiring? you debunked yourself!

anyone with a brain knows that trickle-down doesn’t work. they rejected it when hoover propogated it.

Because you determine the impact of minor actions which are otherwise hard to determine by determining the impact of major items. Even Democrats agree that temporary tax cuts are stimulative, which is why they are throwing the social security system under the bus right now. Even Democrats agree that you shouldn’t raise taxes when the economy is particularly fragile. You’re disputing something that virtually everyone agrees on.

And this has nothing to do with trickle down. I’m talking about total GDP, not how the GDP is split.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Maybe I misunderstood why you were pointing out that they were taxpayers. The government could not tax them and then pay them less, but I don’t see how that would affect your main argument at all, or anything else. That’s why I don’t see the fact that they are taxpayers as being relevant. But overall I agree government services can be valuable.

Rate this comment: 0  0

“I live near Wall Street. The sense of entitlement is beyond quantification,” Sachs said. “They could not figure out why anyone might be mad at them for having nearly destroyed the world economy

http://www.businessinsider.com/nobel-laureate-professor-jeff-sachs-rips-into-how-dumb-wall-streeters-were-2012-4#ixzz1rtVdHhDP

Don’t think also that there isn’t issues of class and education working here. you think Ivy Leaguers wants to be called out by kids sleeping in a park?

Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0  0

By yukon dave @ 29:

I have heard many talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue with Arthur Laugher when he says “if you tax someone 100% they stop working”. Somewhere before 100% they move their corporations to Dubai (AKA Haliburton) or they move assets outside of the country.

I’ve heard many people talk about closing the jails as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue that we should arrest people? If you arrest 100% of the people, they will not be free. Somewhere before 100%, they will flee your jurisdiction.

I bow before your greatness.

Rate this comment: 0  0

By pfft @ 68:

By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

By pfft @ 55:

your only evidence is tax everyone at 100%? not going to cut it.

studies show that raising taxes doesn’t discourage people working in any meaningful way. for the higher incomes there is basically no effect.

Ignore the impact of taxes at your own peril.

how’d the bush unfunded tax cuts for the rich and 2001 and 2003 work out for us? how’d the clinton tax increases work out for us?

Are you really that dense? You think all the other factors in the economy were the same at those two points in time?

Seriously. Quit pretending that you know what you’re talking about. Quit pretending period.

how come you didn’t mention all those factors when you said w/o any qualifications that tax increases hurt business hiring? you debunked yourself!

anyone with a brain knows that trickle-down doesn’t work. they rejected it when hoover propogated it.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I have heard many talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue with Arthur Laugher when he says “if you tax someone 100% they stop working”. Somewhere before 100% they move their corporations to Dubai (AKA Haliburton) or they move assets outside of the country.

I’ve heard many people talk about closing the jails as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue that we should arrest people? If you arrest 100% of the people, they will not be free. Somewhere before 100%, they will flee your jurisdiction.

Rate this comment: 0  0

My response is that it should be included in GDP as the money is spent on actual goods and services – produced by these people. And further, these people are taxpayers; who use that money to pay taxes and to buy goods and services. Some Randians seem to think that there is a heroic, and monolithic “taxpayer” (god) which they can use as a club against real people who pay real taxes.

But none of this has anything to do with someone controlling government taxing, or spending. You introduced that.

Rate this comment: 0  0

By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

By pfft @ 55:

your only evidence is tax everyone at 100%? not going to cut it.

studies show that raising taxes doesn’t discourage people working in any meaningful way. for the higher incomes there is basically no effect.

Ignore the impact of taxes at your own peril.

how’d the bush unfunded tax cuts for the rich and 2001 and 2003 work out for us? how’d the clinton tax increases work out for us?

Are you really that dense? You think all the other factors in the economy were the same at those two points in time?

Seriously. Quit pretending that you know what you’re talking about. Quit pretending period.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: No Name Guy @ 21 –
“Itâ��s a fallacy that government spending = positive product.
Some schmuck govt drone in DC, or a local school district â��program coordinatorâ�� pushing paper produces exactly nothing. Yet their pay and beneâ��s shows up at a positive on the GDP, not a negative like it should (since theyâ��re taking money that could be spent by the taxpayer on actual goods or services).”

1. You may not like the services that they produce; but that isn’t the same as nothing.
2. They are taxpayers.

In context of the conversation, your argument here is that, “some schmuck govt drone in DC, and a local school district program coordinator” are making the spending decisions for the entire government.

I dont’ think I’d want my name on an argument like that.

Not my point at all. My point is in the context of what you’re talking about, it doesn’t matter that they are taxpayers. Nothing they do affects the taxes they have to pay in any significant way.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: Blurtman @ 61 -

True, but also true that O blew through several $trillion. He should have done a better job of targeting, i.e. someone besides the banks. This is year 4 of his tenure- when is it not Bush’s fault anymore? I just want to know when we can start holding the O responsible.

it’s the fault of the Republican Congress. remember when Boehner credited good jobs numbers to the fact that the House when to Republicans? I do. I guess he’s not taking credit now. or at least this month.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: Scotsman @ 59 – The problem is I think most probably accept the argument that President Obama started in a big hole. While that’s certainly true, the way to climb out of that hole wasn’t to pass Obamacare and repeatedly threaten tax increases on business. Both of those things create a lot of uncertainty for business, and that causes businesses to be cautious. Lots of those who are currently unemployed have no one else to blame for their situation but President Obama.

I forgot to mention that President Obama also increased the risk of failure, by personally vilifying those in certain industries that failed. Being more conservative in business leads to less employment.

Interesting that he didn’t take that same route for the incumbents in Congress in 2008. Oh wait . . .. ;-)

“repeatedly threaten tax increases on business.”

such as?

do you realize how much stronger our economy is when our people can get healthcare? can a dead person work for a business? can a dead person own a small business? can a dead person provide food for their family or look after the household? most bankputcies have some element of healthcare debt involved.

anyways surveys have shown that the number concern of businesses is lack of demand.

Rate this comment: 0  0

By pfft @ 55:

your only evidence is tax everyone at 100%? not going to cut it.

studies show that raising taxes doesn’t discourage people working in any meaningful way. for the higher incomes there is basically no effect.

Ignore the impact of taxes at your own peril.

how’d the bush unfunded tax cuts for the rich and 2001 and 2003 work out for us? how’d the clinton tax increases work out for us?

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 56 – RE: pfft @ 55 –

Hey, he has a chart to prove it- we are a low tax country! I’m not sure where the correlation between tax rates and living standards comes from though. the chart only shows .gov spending as a percentage of GDP, i.e. which countries are the most socialist. If Denmark is heaven, pfffffft wins.

BUT- buried down in the fine print so to speak is this little gem. Who can tell me what’s wrong with making the jump from this statement to our current situation- in fact the situation for the last several decades?:

” CBO has found that tax increases used to reduce budget deficits can improve long-term economic growth and job creation.”

In short, the piece and the author are both intellectually dishonest in presenting the data/argument as they do. If anyone believes the premise put forth, we can check it by taking the next step. Want to be an even more “successful” country than the current top three? Then let’s take 60% of GDP in .gov revenue and shoot to the top of the pile in both living standards and future growth potential!

what exactly are you saying?

by the way research just came out that says tax rates can go way up and not hurt economic growth.

“CBO has found that tax increases used to reduce budget deficits can improve long-term economic growth and job creation.”

we know that right now that is not the case though. there is no crowding out right now.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: David S @ 37 – I wonder if Tatiana packs “Baby” with a thigh holster or a Flashbang bra holster?

Did you forget that you’re on the internet? Tatiana may be an attractive young russian brunette with a famous rifle surname and penchant for glocks and house prices. Scotsman may be Gonzo, and I may be a garbage filled, wrecked house. But probably not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLwKw9up3s

Rate this comment: 0  0

By whatsmyname @ 27:

2. They are taxpayers..

That’s rather irrelevant since they only pay for about .00000000000000001% of their spending decisions.

In context of the conversation, your argument here is that, “some schmuck govt drone in DC, and a local school district program coordinator” are making the spending decisions for the entire government.

I dont’ think I’d want my name on an argument like that.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Obama could have let the economy collapse, not spent a dime, not saved the banking system as we know it, and been a hero.

Instead he pushed for Health Care Reform, spent trillions of dollars, and turned the economy around. What’s the problem?

I think most global leaders would applaud his actions, because it saved a lot of wealth.

Rate this comment: 0  0

True, but also true that O blew through several $trillion. He should have done a better job of targeting, i.e. someone besides the banks. This is year 4 of his tenure- when is it not Bush’s fault anymore? I just want to know when we can start holding the O responsible.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

I forgot to mention that President Obama also increased the risk of failure, by personally vilifying those in certain industries that failed. Being more conservative in business leads to less employment.

Interesting that he didn’t take that same route for the incumbents in Congress in 2008. Oh wait . . .. ;-)

Rate this comment: 0  0

https://yfrog.com/od8wdap:tw1

Rate this comment: 0  0

https://yfrog.com/kg4fsap:tw1

Rate this comment: 0  0

Hey, he has a chart to prove it- we are a low tax country! I’m not sure where the correlation between tax rates and living standards comes from though. the chart only shows .gov spending as a percentage of GDP, i.e. which countries are the most socialist. If Denmark is heaven, pfffffft wins.

BUT- buried down in the fine print so to speak is this little gem. Who can tell me what’s wrong with making the jump from this statement to our current situation- in fact the situation for the last several decades?:

” CBO has found that tax increases used to reduce budget deficits can improve long-term economic growth and job creation.”

In short, the piece and the author are both intellectually dishonest in presenting the data/argument as they do. If anyone believes the premise put forth, we can check it by taking the next step. Want to be an even more “successful” country than the current top three? Then let’s take 60% of GDP in .gov revenue and shoot to the top of the pile in both living standards and future growth potential!

Rate this comment: 0  0

your only evidence is tax everyone at 100%? not going to cut it.

studies show that raising taxes doesn’t discourage people working in any meaningful way. for the higher incomes there is basically no effect.

Ignore the impact of taxes at your own peril. The government, however, should not do that.

As to your studies, that’s why I’m suggesting taxing people with W2 income more. I don’t think a slight increase in tax rate will affect their employment that significantly. Greater increases will, but very few W2 earners turn down employment or raises due to taxes. Businesses are different.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: pfft @ 52 – Seriously, you want data to prove the obvious? Tax everyone at 100% and see how many people continue to go to work. Tax businesses at 100% and see how many stay open.

You can argue otherwise, but I’ll restate that no one can seriously claim that taxes do not hinder economic activity.

your only evidence is tax everyone at 100%? not going to cut it.

studies show that raising taxes doesn’t discourage people working in any meaningful way. for the higher incomes there is basically no effect. talking about taxing people at 100% rates doesn’t do anything to advance the discussion.

these high-tax countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world with equality and good economic growth. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are perpetually at the top of the best places to live.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/thinking-about-tax-policy-part-2-taxes-today-are-low/

Rate this comment: 0  0

You can argue otherwise, but I’ll restate that no one can seriously claim that taxes do not hinder economic activity.

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MFSr08waHA8

Rate this comment: 0  0

By pfft @ 47:.

no some of the highest taxed economies have some of the best growth and most equal societies.

Just think of recent history. unfunded tax cuts for for the rich under Bush ended with a crash. the Clinton tax increases didn’t stop a boom.

Seriously, best growth? It’s easier for something small to have a higher growth rate. Smaller companies typically have higher growth rates than larger companies.

And as to the second paragraph, Google the word “causation.” Or how about checking out what website you’re on and then perhaps reassessing what you think caused the crash of the economy! /sarc

As I said originally, some people like to pretend the result is different than what it is by noting two different periods in time and pretending everything else is equal between those periods. Thank you for providing an excellent example of someone pretending.

why don’t you post some data about your original claim. so us taxes inhibit growth

“As I said originally, some people like to pretend the result is different than what it is by noting two different periods in time and pretending everything else is equal between those periods.”

by that logic EVERY time is a different time and not very relevant. the Clinton tax increases were supposed to cost us 10 million jobs according to some Republicans. didn’t happen.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Earthquake Outbreak in U.S. Tied to Fracking Wastewater
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-12/earthquake-outbreak-in-central-u-s-tied-to-drilling-wastewater.html

Rate this comment: 0  0

no some of the highest taxed economies have some of the best growth and most equal societies.

Just think of recent history. unfunded tax cuts for for the rich under Bush ended with a crash. the Clinton tax increases didn’t stop a boom.

Seriously, best growth? It’s easier for something small to have a higher growth rate. Smaller companies typically have higher growth rates than larger companies.

And as to the second paragraph, Google the word “causation.” Or how about checking out what website you’re on and then perhaps reassessing what you think caused the crash of the economy! /sarc

As I said originally, some people like to pretend the result is different than what it is by noting two different periods in time and pretending everything else is equal between those periods. Thank you for providing an excellent example of someone pretending.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I Document Average Sales Prices at $134K in Richland

You offer just unfound allegations and insult me too. Which method holds up in court?

If you’ve read my past blogs I am very concerned about radioactive waste from nuclear plants, earthquakes/dams, mercury/coal, etc…..the root cause is overpopulation and until we deal with that we’re missing the whole point entirely and if we likely do nothing about overpopulation, hades, ya gotta eat and feed your family. Look after yourself and your own financial future; no one else will.

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/ryan-budget-would-raise-some-taxes-guess-who-gets-hit/

What we should really do is let the bush tax cuts expire(thereby stabilizing debt levels) and do a revenue neutral pollution(carbon) tax. We could even up the lower brackets just in case the poor are hurt by it. or we could make it revenue neutral as to taxes for the poor. it’s what they just did in Australia.

Rate this comment: 0  0

By yukon dave @ 29:

I have heard many talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue with Arthur Laugher when he says “if you tax someone 100% they stop working”. Somewhere before 100% they move their corporations to Dubai (AKA Haliburton) or they move assets outside of the country.

Exactly. It’s impossible to argue seriously that taxes do not hinder the economy.

no some of the highest taxed economies have some of the best growth and most equal societies.

Just think of recent history. unfunded tax cuts for for the rich under Bush ended with a crash. the Clinton tax increases didn’t stop a boom.

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-posts-biggest-march-budget-deficit-history-or-how-chart-became-chart

Snips
“Following the all time record high February budget deficit of $232 billion, the US March budget deficit number is in, and in addition to being bigger than expected, coming at $198.2 billion on expectations of “only” $196 billion……This brings the total deficit in fiscal 2012 to $779 billion,……(Oct 1 2011 – March 31, 2012)…..What is most disturbing is that the comparable tax revenues net of refunds, “matching” this increase in deficit and spending, are only $693 billion, in other words the US government is funding well more than half of its cash needs with debt rather than with tax revenue. ”

Come on Pfft…..tell us how spending more than double what you’re making (and of course, racking up the difference on the credit card) is a good thing.

Oh, and to put things in perspective: 779 Billion divided by (approximately) 305 million people in the country is $2,554 a person. Divide that by the 6 months is a mere $426 a month for each and every man, woman and child in the nation. So, those of you with a family of four, you’re going in hock, actually I mean the dip sh**ts in DC are PUTTING you in hock, to the tune of $1,703 PER MONTH. Again, pfft, how is it a good thing that a family of 4 is getting put in hock to the tune of 1700 a month?

1. the government is not a family budget.

2. how is austerity going for Greece, Spain and other countries?

3. austerity disproven in real-time right before your eyes.

Fiscal Policy and Growth In Europe
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/fiscal-policy-and-growth-in-europe/

4. interest rates are at all-time lows for all intents and purposes.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: One Eyed Man @ 13 –

So, you’re saying you were against the deficits before you were for them?

Doesn’t matter. Since there isn’t a single adult in the room (even Ryan doesn’t go far enough) I’d give this game another 5-7 years at least before the boom.

yet you were so sure the economic collapse would happen january of 2011…

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: softwarengineer @ 36 – I realize I’m wasting my time engaging w/ SWE, but I concur w/ RedmondJP – Tri-Cities are overvalued, but they are a world unto themselves.

Effectively a lot of government employment there, so they will have higher prices, just like Kitsap County, Olympia, Washington DC., etc.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Interesting what you consider a green job – radioactive waste disposal doesn’t count?

Not unless you’re exposed and start glowing.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

I also question Trulia’s data – they have Kennewick’s median sale price @ $2.8 MM, which is impossible:
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Kennewick-Washington/

Interesting what you consider a green job – radioactive waste disposal doesn’t count?

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.glock.com/english/glock26.htm

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

You’re Wrong; Richland Median Home Prices are $134K and Going Down

Your relatives are feeding you hype.

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Richland-Washington/

And landing a job [its a green job, considering no carbon footprint] at a reactor would pay 3-4 times the pay those Seattle gardening jobs pay. You’d be rich in Richland.

Rate this comment: 0  0

RE: yukon dave @ 29 -
Tax cuts are good when your debts are paid and you’re running surpluses.

Probably, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only time they are good.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I have heard many talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy as bad. How can someone in their right mind argue with Arthur Laugher when he says “if you tax someone 100% they stop working”. Somewhere before 100% they move their corporations to Dubai (AKA Haliburton) or they move assets outside of the country.

Exactly. It’s impossible to argue seriously that taxes do not hinder the economy. So instead what people do is pick two points in time, compare the taxes and state of the economy at those two points in time, and then pretend everything else was the same so that they can pretend taxes don’t hinder the economy.

Rather obviously we need some level of taxes to avoid having anarchy. But the trick is to have those taxes be as low as possible, and to tax things that will have the least effect on the economy as possible. That’s why I’ve been advocating higher taxes for W-2 income. While a 100% tax would stop someone from going to work everyday, a 5% increase in taxes for most people would not have that impact. In contrast, a 5% increase in taxes for business (or even talk of such an increase) will hinder business activity, which is part of the reason our recovery has been so slow.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

2. They are taxpayers..

That’s rather irrelevant since they only pay for about .00000000000000001% of their spending decisions.

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47025412/ns/local_news-seattle_wa/#.T4bhxFGWfcE

(BTW, another good size earthquake in Mexico after that was written.)

Rate this comment: 0  0