DC Tom Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The head of my Senior Seminar was actually a Marxist The proper term is "tenured". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Get off your lazy as and get a job. And I don't mean a job using your degree. Just go flip burgers or something. Rob's House gave the lecture but Jim cut to the chase. Edited March 19, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I don't have time to go dig up data for this discussion. The point is that you plucking deficit figures from 2001-2006 isn't conclusive. Your implication is that tax rates were the cause but that conclusion requires that all other variables be held constant which isn't the case. Gotta break em in gently I picked those two years because 2001 is the year just prior to the cuts AND the stock market didn't do well so you can't use the cap gains argument that gg always brings in; I chose 2006 because it has a comparable unemployment rate AND it gives a couple of years for the tax cuts to really kick in and provide an impact. The personal revenue shares for each year are 9.7% and 7.9% respectively, a -1.8% difference. Corporate revenues helped offset that a bit. The deficit as a % of GDP was -0.3% in 2001 and -3.3% in 2006. The increased deficit of course came from a combination of lower revenues and increased spending. Overall, for the 3% differential, lower revenues contributed 1% and increased spending 2%. It doesn't change the conclusions: 1. personal tax cuts reduce personal tax revenues measured as a share of gdp (for relatively comparable periods, the personal tax cuts generated almost 2% less revenue). 2. There is no hoser's law. There is a lot of movement around the average, and with $15 trillion gdp, 1% change means $150 billion impact. IMO, If there is some "dynamic" that prevents taxes from exceeding 20% of gdp, it's probably a political barrier--the public reacts at the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Rob's House gave the lecture but Jim cut to the chase. The best classroom regarding finance and economics is maintaining and balancing your own checkbook and starting an IRA and/or 401k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I picked those two years because 2001 is the year just prior to the cuts AND the stock market didn't do well so you can't use the cap gains argument that gg always brings in; I chose 2006 because it has a comparable unemployment rate AND it gives a couple of years for the tax cuts to really kick in and provide an impact. The personal revenue shares for each year are 9.7% and 7.9% respectively, a -1.8% difference. Corporate revenues helped offset that a bit. The deficit as a % of GDP was -0.3% in 2001 and -3.3% in 2006. The increased deficit of course came from a combination of lower revenues and increased spending. Overall, for the 3% differential, lower revenues contributed 1% and increased spending 2%. It doesn't change the conclusions: 1. personal tax cuts reduce personal tax revenues measured as a share of gdp (for relatively comparable periods, the personal tax cuts generated almost 2% less revenue). 2. There is no hoser's law. There is a lot of movement around the average, and with $15 trillion gdp, 1% change means $150 billion impact. IMO, If there is some "dynamic" that prevents taxes from exceeding 20% of gdp, it's probably a political barrier--the public reacts at the polls. Welcome back to the merrygoround. I don't think that we ever argued that Bush tax cuts affected revenues. Of course they did. But the economy rebounded and grew faster than historic average. So total revenue take from the fiscal side was not the problem. The problem was that the Bush tax cut took too many people off the tax rolls, and now no one has the political will to get them back on. You can debate all you want about whether usurious tax policy is immaterial for the wealthy. Reality is that individual & corporate tax receipts are lagging and the economy is anemic. Maybe Obama needs to get a bigger bullhorn to get the rich to play along with his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 When was the last time you posted something substantive as opposed to an ad hominem attack? Don't know. Don't care. You're not worth the time and you know exactly why that is, as do most of the rest of the !@#$ing drones. At least magox tries to back up his claims with data. That's because he's not old enough to know better. Anyone with experience knows there's little reason to bother. He'll eventually get there and you'll still be throwing out your pitiful (yet arrogant) takes and pretending your "Romper Room" level substance actually amounts to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 By the time I graduated college I had 6 years of real work experience and I only went to college for less than two years. Get off your lazy as and get a job. And I don't mean a job using your degree. Just go flip burgers or something. +1 I remember getting my first paycheck. I was 16 and working at Burger King. Minimum wage at that time was like $4 or $5 and being I was a minor I couldn't work more than like 20ish hours a week. So the paycheck couldn't have been more than $100. But I was so happy. I was getting paid. It was my money. I earned it and didn't need to depend on my parents for money anymore. Then I got that check and had a serious WTF moment. Then my Dad and I had a father/son bonding moment as he explained to me how the world outside of school really works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 +1 I remember getting my first paycheck. I was 16 and working at Burger King. Minimum wage at that time was like $4 or $5 and being I was a minor I couldn't work more than like 20ish hours a week. So the paycheck couldn't have been more than $100. But I was so happy. I was getting paid. It was my money. I earned it and didn't need to depend on my parents for money anymore. Then I got that check and had a serious WTF moment. Then my Dad and I had a father/son bonding moment as he explained to me how the world outside of school really works. I remember my kid bringing home his first and asking "Who the hell is FICA?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I picked those two years because 2001 is the year just prior to the cuts AND the stock market didn't do well so you can't use the cap gains argument that gg always brings in; I chose 2006 because it has a comparable unemployment rate AND it gives a couple of years for the tax cuts to really kick in and provide an impact. The personal revenue shares for each year are 9.7% and 7.9% respectively, a -1.8% difference. Corporate revenues helped offset that a bit. The deficit as a % of GDP was -0.3% in 2001 and -3.3% in 2006. The increased deficit of course came from a combination of lower revenues and increased spending. Overall, for the 3% differential, lower revenues contributed 1% and increased spending 2%. It doesn't change the conclusions: 1. personal tax cuts reduce personal tax revenues measured as a share of gdp (for relatively comparable periods, the personal tax cuts generated almost 2% less revenue). 2. There is no hoser's law. There is a lot of movement around the average, and with $15 trillion gdp, 1% change means $150 billion impact. IMO, If there is some "dynamic" that prevents taxes from exceeding 20% of gdp, it's probably a political barrier--the public reacts at the polls. Wow, you really blew the doors off the theory with that. What other conclusion could there possibly be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I remember my kid bringing home his first and asking "Who the hell is FICA?" That was one of my first questions too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I remember my kid bringing home his first and asking "Who the hell is FICA?" A chip off the ole block eh? My dad called me in his office at the restaurant one day. He sat me down and said Cook Jim, I'm giving you a raise. I said I know, you have to, they just raised minimum wage. He gave me that "you little ****" look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Holy oversimplification, batman. You don't get to pretend there was a "budget surplus" in 2000 when the entire thing was a charade. The piper is gonna get paid eventually and the last recession is the fruit of the entire thing. The fundamentals of the US economy are broken because of Keynesian economics, not in spite of it. No, there wasn't a surplus, but the economy was in better condition. Then we got hit by 9/11 and our economy was damaged in so many areas. Then the deficit grew. Then we cut taxes and went to war. Then we passed a terrible "Healthcare" law. Now, the problem has become more "How can we get anything done, when we all are told to disagree on everything" more than fixing the problem. politics, politics, politics...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Welcome back to the merrygoround. I don't think that we ever argued that Bush tax cuts affected revenues. Of course they did. But the economy rebounded and grew faster than historic average. So total revenue take from the fiscal side was not the problem. The problem was that the Bush tax cut took too many people off the tax rolls, and now no one has the political will to get them back on. You can debate all you want about whether usurious tax policy is immaterial for the wealthy. Reality is that individual & corporate tax receipts are lagging and the economy is anemic. Maybe Obama needs to get a bigger bullhorn to get the rich to play along with his game. So making sure that the bottom 40% who aren't paying federal income taxes pay some tax will fill the shortfall? Let's see, they get 12% of ALL income, so your saying if we somehow get them back to paying some federal income tax all will be solved? It can't be that the top 20% share has increased to over 50% of all income while their tax rate has declined? Ps. It's pretty hilarious that the pendulum has swung so far right that all of you now arguing against one of Reagan's supply-side gurus in Mr. Bartlett.... Edited March 19, 2012 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Ah, I see. I mistook the egg for the chicken. That must have made for a bad dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 No, there wasn't a surplus, but the economy was in better condition. No, it wasn't. It was all a giant charade. The current malaise is a direct result of all the falsehoods of the "Clinton Economy". 9/11, tax cuts, wars, Katrina, etc are all just pieces of the puzzle but there's no way this recession wasn't happening. The economic fundamentals of cheap money, red hot housing, hyper borrowing/spending, tech/venture, etc guaranteed an epic crash was coming. The Clinton economy was built on falsehoods and good feelings. Welcome to the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So making sure that the bottom 40% who aren't paying federal income taxes pay some tax will fill the shortfall? Are you really trying to argue that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes make so little money that it's not even worth the effort? Doesn't that kind of ruin the whole "Everyone should pay their fair share" whine you liberals love to spout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are you really trying to argue that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes make so little money that it's not even worth the effort? Doesn't that kind of ruin the whole "Everyone should pay their fair share" whine you liberals love to spout? But "nothing" is their fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are you really trying to argue that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes make so little money that it's not even worth the effort? Doesn't that kind of ruin the whole "Everyone should pay their fair share" whine you liberals love to spout? Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. If people stopped thinking there was a magical solution to the deficit, then we could get something done. There is no painless way to eliminate or minimize the deficit. Cuts have to be made in every area and taxes need to be raised. Otherwise, we can hope that people are right about 12/21/12..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) By the time I graduated college I had 6 years of real work experience and I only went to college for less than two years. Get off your lazy as and get a job. And I don't mean a job using your degree. Just go flip burgers or something. I am working a real job right now. That's was in college. The "good Americans" don't like to see people making money through "gambling". Haha. Playing poker for a living isn't easy or anything though... “The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling.” Edited March 20, 2012 by fjl2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts