114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 06:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Heads should roll in the 2010 elections.

No senator that voted for this should be rewarded with reelection.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 07:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Havent I been saying vote against the incumbant legislators since the raygun administration. Once they have been there for four years they are all crooks.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 08:10 pm
@rabel22,
The funny dynamics that plays out every election cycle is that most constituents believe their representative is one of the better ones, and all the rest are crooks and no-goods, so they elect them into another term. They can't see what we have done to our country by voting those crooks into office time after time. We have found the enemy, and ....
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 09:52 pm
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT wrote:

Oh, you are so wrong, cicerone imposter! When my brother, who is a very successful entrepreneur, reached the point where he paid over 45% of his income to Federal, State and Local Taxes in New York, he retired to live on his investments. Okie is correct. You are the one whose statements go beyond logic, common sense and comedy. But, unlike Okie, you are sliding toward senility. Read your own posts! Show them to a person skilled in geriatrics>

I think the point is inescapable, massagat. I have argued this point several times on A2K on various threads, and have applied simple math to the equation to no avail, but the answer is inescapably obvious. I am willing to debate where the optimum tax rate might be, it is possible that the current tax rate is to the left of the peak on the Laffer Curve, which means that slight increases in the tax rate might increase revenues, but I would still argue that it is not even a straight line equation in that event, the economy could suffer slightly, but perhaps not so much as to reduce revenues. It all depends upon many factors at any point in time with the economy, as it is obvious that it all depends upon many many factors that are in play.

One of my best arguments that I think I have come up with is the comparison of the gdp of South Korea vs North Korea. In that comparison, you have South Korea's overall tax rate at I think 20 some percent, while North Korea's could be likened to near 100%, because all production and essentially revenue flows from the people to the government, then back to the people. Essentially, the gdp of North Korea is I think less than 5% of South Korea's, which provides indisputable proof that people just do not produce as much or work as hard if they cannot directly benefit from their work. So my conclusion is that 25% of 100% is alot more than 100% of less than 5%, in fact several times more.

Of course there are other factors in play here, we should never pretend that optimizing the amount of tax revenue is the only thing we are after. We should try to minimize what government does, so that we do not need to squeeze the maximum tax revenue out of the economy that we can possibly manage to do. We have way more government than we need, I see so much waste that it is ridiculous, and I think almost every citizen knows about alot of wasteful spending, that is just not necessary at all.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 10:28 pm
@okie,
okie, And when do you think any developed country will convert to 100% tax rate? You are so stupid, it's no wonder like-minded a2kers come to your defense. You understand nothing about this country or any other country, but know how to spew garbage and bull **** about them all~!
rabel22
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 01:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI, I think you give waterman too much credit when you accuse him of spewing garbage and bull ****. These things do have some value. What he spews dosent.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 02:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I thought Obama said he was going to CUT the deficit!!!

H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 02:31 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I thought Obama said he was going to CUT the deficit!!!




My signature explains this confusion...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 04:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Again, selective information from you, completely.

Reagan RAISED taxes, much more than he cut them, before employment began to rise. You ought to get your facts straight on this one.

Clinton RAISED taxes, and employment grew at a greater rate than we had seen in forever.

Bush 2 LOWERED taxes, and employment did not significant change.

Cyclo, this post of yours contains your usual misinformation. I doubt even you actually believe it to be true.


As I have previously posted:
Quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]

1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]

1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%


1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]

1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%

1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]

2001- 2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%

2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
As of October 2009 ....138,275,000.........- 7,087,000

Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 04:57 pm
@ican711nm,
This post doesn't actually address any of my points - again. Why do you even bother?

How do you explain the fact that, under Clinton, we had double - more than double - the growth that the Republican presidents had, WITH tax raises on the rich? Do you have any explanation at all for this?

And, just to remind you, Reagan raised several taxes (other than income taxes) by a large amount during his term...

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 06:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
There are better evidence than that! Look at "all" the developed countries. Their taxes are higher than the US, and their economy is not suffering from it. The second and third richest countries, Japan and Germany, has much higher taxes than the US, but they continue to remain 2d and 3d economic superpowers.

Maybe, okie and ican can explain that!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 06:20 pm
@okie,
okie loves to compare the economies of South Korea and NOrth Korea, because he has no idea they are trying to compare apples and oranges.

He tries very hard to make a point that has no relationship between the two countries; only their name is similar, "Korea." okie never did understand economics, and it's no surprise.

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 06:28 pm
Citigroup, ahead of President Obama's meeting today with leaders of the big banks. announced that they were repaying $20B of TARP money. The government (under Mr Bush or Mr Obama) invested another $25B in Citi's stock. A 1/3rd stake. Those shares will be sold on the open market and the government may reap a $5B gain. Citi shares fell 6% today.
Government investment in private companies is, in general, a horrible idea. But this, under extreme circumstances, looks like it may turn out well.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 06:31 pm
@realjohnboy,
How can it not Johnny? The skills have not been liquidated and niether has the increasing efficiency of machines.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 06:47 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Citigroup, ahead of President Obama's meeting today with leaders of the big banks. announced that they were repaying $20B of TARP money. The government (under Mr Bush or Mr Obama) invested another $25B in Citi's stock. A 1/3rd stake. Those shares will be sold on the open market and the government may reap a $5B gain. Citi shares fell 6% today.
Government investment in private companies is, in general, a horrible idea. But this, under extreme circumstances, looks like it may turn out well.


Yes, we will probably actually end up making money off of them.

This is why the pressure on Exec pay was such a good idea...

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 07:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:



we will probably actually end up making money off of them.




We?

Who is we?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 07:42 pm
I talked today with a person that is well positioned in a bank, and they told me they were arm twisted to take federal money, but they refused it, did not need it and did not want it, because they saw too many strings attached. I said, good, I will continue to do business with your bank.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 07:50 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I talked today with a person that is well positioned in a bank, and they told me they were arm twisted to take federal money, but they refused it, did not need it and did not want it, because they saw too many strings attached. I said, good, I will continue to do business with your bank.


Same story here and I also choose not to do business with Obama car companies.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 08:46 pm
How about Bush car companies? I think I am correct that the 1st TARP funds were passed out before Obama was in office. Wrong?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 09:47 pm
@realjohnboy,
Not wrong exactly, but Bush gave the companies just enough to live till Obama could decide what to do with them. Obama decided to save them....temporally at least cause I don't see how Chrysler makes it, and given the long track record of incompetence at GM as well as consumers not wanting to support a company that by all rights should be dead already...GM's future is shaky.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 01:40:55