Economic Collapse 2011?

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount]

I don’t think people are misinformed at all, in fact I think we are going through an awakening thanks to the City of Bell.

[/quote]

I’m a socialist and believe strongly in a well-funded and accountable government that serves the people. What happened in Bell is beyond criminal, and there is no argument that some heads need to roll there.

Still, what too many do is take the outliers and make generalizations about the rest of the government agencies and employees. So many people don’t see all the benefits we derive from our taxes because so much of it is run so efficiently that it goes unnoticed. The vast majority of what our govt employees do is done exceptionally well and in a very professional manner.

That being said, it is essential that in order to establish and maintain trust and goodwill, the government needs to be judicious and above-board in all their dealings. We do not have that now, admittedly.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Art Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.

Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.

Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.

However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.

I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.

Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.[/quote]

Precisely, gandalf!

Everyone likes to point to the “growth” during the Reagan years and also after the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” IMHO, they never discuss the exponential credit expansion and/or deficit spending going on during these periods.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Art Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.

Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.

Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.

However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.

I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.

Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.[/quote]

Precisely, gandalf!

Everyone likes to point to the “growth” during the Reagan years and also after the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” IMHO, they never discuss the exponential credit expansion and/or deficit spending going on during these periods.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Art Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.

Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.

Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.

However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.

I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.

Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.[/quote]

Precisely, gandalf!

Everyone likes to point to the “growth” during the Reagan years and also after the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” IMHO, they never discuss the exponential credit expansion and/or deficit spending going on during these periods.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Art Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.

Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.

Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.

However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.

I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.

Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.[/quote]

Precisely, gandalf!

Everyone likes to point to the “growth” during the Reagan years and also after the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” IMHO, they never discuss the exponential credit expansion and/or deficit spending going on during these periods.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Art Laffer? Good grief. The dude’s a carnival barker.

Tax cuts get thrown in with all kinds of other more important historical economic variables and conditions (business cycles, wars, oil shocks, currency markets, bubbles and panics, etc.). It’s impossible to isolate any causation, or even correlation. Nobody has proven anything.

Supply-side is a political slogan, not economics.

However, there’s a strong correlation between tax cuts and public sector borrowing. Easy to connect those dots. Often the people chirping about tax cuts are the same ones hawking about deficits. No hypocrisy there.

I think we should cut taxes, on income, and especially at middle class levels. Hell, I’d even go for a flat tax — provided public receipts can be recouped through offseting reductions in TAX AVOIDANCE, especially for corporations and wealthy individuals. Avoidance is the real problem.

Again, supply-side is mostly politics, not economics.[/quote]

Precisely, gandalf!

Everyone likes to point to the “growth” during the Reagan years and also after the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” IMHO, they never discuss the exponential credit expansion and/or deficit spending going on during these periods.

[patb]

[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..

high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.

as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.

[patb]

[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..

high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.

as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.

[patb]

[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..

high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.

as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.

[patb]

[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..

high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.

as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.

[patb]

[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..

high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.

as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.

[GH]

[quote=patb][quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..
[/quote]

Hmmm, In UK in the 60’s most of their best minds left for America where they were paid better and were taxed less. The impact was disasterous!!

The Soviet Union, correct me if I am wrong, but did they not go bankrupt?

The question is if you want to live in a free society and have a choice where your income is spent , or have it spent for you by someone who knows what is good for you.

I am not advocating 0% tax, since obviously we would quickly see anarchy. California raised sales tax and collects less income. Less products and cars are sold as a result, less income tax is collected and eventually more tax is collected on less sales resulting in a net loss.

[GH]

[quote=patb][quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..
[/quote]

Hmmm, In UK in the 60’s most of their best minds left for America where they were paid better and were taxed less. The impact was disasterous!!

The Soviet Union, correct me if I am wrong, but did they not go bankrupt?

The question is if you want to live in a free society and have a choice where your income is spent , or have it spent for you by someone who knows what is good for you.

I am not advocating 0% tax, since obviously we would quickly see anarchy. California raised sales tax and collects less income. Less products and cars are sold as a result, less income tax is collected and eventually more tax is collected on less sales resulting in a net loss.

[GH]

[quote=patb][quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..
[/quote]

Hmmm, In UK in the 60’s most of their best minds left for America where they were paid better and were taxed less. The impact was disasterous!!

The Soviet Union, correct me if I am wrong, but did they not go bankrupt?

The question is if you want to live in a free society and have a choice where your income is spent , or have it spent for you by someone who knows what is good for you.

I am not advocating 0% tax, since obviously we would quickly see anarchy. California raised sales tax and collects less income. Less products and cars are sold as a result, less income tax is collected and eventually more tax is collected on less sales resulting in a net loss.

[GH]

[quote=patb][quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00

If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00

[/quote]

Wildly incorrect.

US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.

In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.

Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..
[/quote]

Hmmm, In UK in the 60’s most of their best minds left for America where they were paid better and were taxed less. The impact was disasterous!!

The Soviet Union, correct me if I am wrong, but did they not go bankrupt?

The question is if you want to live in a free society and have a choice where your income is spent , or have it spent for you by someone who knows what is good for you.

I am not advocating 0% tax, since obviously we would quickly see anarchy. California raised sales tax and collects less income. Less products and cars are sold as a result, less income tax is collected and eventually more tax is collected on less sales resulting in a net loss.

[Author]

Posts