quote:
Aw, geez, I have Maradon! all over myself!
You would think that, but only if you have a skewed understanding of how economics works.The concept of a "tax burden" as a fixed thing that must be shouldered is flawed. The cost of running government is not a weight, it is more akin to an energy requirement. If you decrease the amount of capitol you are removing from the economy you increase the ability of everyone to fill the financial needs of government. The only way to decrease the amount of capitol that is being removed from the economy by a more-than-trivial amount is to cut taxes for those who are paying the most taxes - corporations and business owners.
But where the government is obligated to do certain things, the population is not. The government needs to maintain an army, infrastructure, state-run education, etc. The people, on the other hand, can spend our money on whatever they want, so Joe Smapdi is under no obligation to take his tax check and enroll his children in a private school, or start using the privately-maintained toll road. Indeed, he can blow it all on liquor and whores, if he wants. Shit, that's what I'd do.
Your argument, though, is still correct. The ability of the people to fill the financial needs of the government is increased, but with no obligation to do so, is not necessarily fulfilled. I would argue, in fact, that those financial needs are, more often than not, left unfulfilled, as evidenced by the atrocious state of public primary schools in this country. Of course, whether the government could do a better job with more money is certainly debatable, but some services, especially ones which are non-commodities, would do horribly as a private enterprise. Thus, underfunding them is not only fruitless, but indeed harmful.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
You would think that, but only if you have a skewed understanding of how economics works.The concept of a "tax burden" as a fixed thing that must be shouldered is flawed. The cost of running government is not a weight, it is more akin to an energy requirement. If you decrease the amount of capitol you are removing from the economy you increase the ability of everyone to fill the financial needs of government. The only way to decrease the amount of capitol that is being removed from the economy by a more-than-trivial amount is to cut taxes for those who are paying the most taxes - corporations and business owners.
Here we go with your Econ 101 theories again. (Oh, and by the way, it's capital, not capitol -- capitol always refers to a seat of government, capital covers everything else. 
)
You never do quite follow through on your premise through to the logical conclusion: If corporations shouldn't be paying the taxes... who does the burden fall to -- and why do you consider their money less important?
quote:Decreasing taxes only on the rich means, obviously, that the rich get more money while the government gets less. According to the standard Republican party theory, the rich then immediately (or nearly so) take this money and spend it on things that either [a] are taxable, or [b] benefit the public as a whole (such as increasing salaries or donating to charities). The problem is, the rich don't do that. They (heretofore known as the rich) pocket the money (in swiss bank accounts or the like), or invest as much of it as possible into non-taxable income sources. Because the objective of the rich is to get more rich, cutting the taxes paid by the rich either [a] leaves the government with less money, [b] increases the tax burden on people who have less money, or [c] both of the above.
Maradon! really knows where their towel is...
Some stuff, followed by...The only way to decrease the amount of capitol that is being removed from the economy by a more-than-trivial amount is to cut taxes for those who are paying the most taxes - corporations and business owners.
Don't get me wrong, there are times when it's in the best interests of the rich (as a collective) to improve the living standards of the less rich (as a collective). However, once general conditions reach a certain point, it no longer benefits the rich (as individuals) to improve the living standards of the less rich (as employed by said individuals). When they (heretofore known as general economic conditions) hit that point, the rich (as individuals) stop spreading the money around, and start investing in their own upward-spiraling incomes (heretofore known as getting more rich). `Doc fucked around with this message on 11-03-2004 at 03:57 PM.
Waisz fucked around with this message on 11-03-2004 at 04:37 PM.
Odd, isn't it.
quote:Those were ECO 101 and ECO 102, respectively, where I went to college. I also took microeconomics in highschool (got a 5 on the AP test), but had a schedule conflict with macro, and the college (university for you non-americans) wouldn't count one without the other.
Roll the dice to see if Kinanik is getting drunk!
I don't think there's a such thing as Economics 101. My college starts with 201(Micro) and 202(Macro).Odd, isn't it.
`Doc fucked around with this message on 11-03-2004 at 05:10 PM.
quote:
Drysart got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Here we go with your Econ 101 theories again. (Oh, and by the way, it's capital, not capitol -- capitol always refers to a seat of government, capital covers everything else.)
Yeah I know, I've been misspelling capital for a while now. Chalk it up to habit.
quote:
You never do quite follow through on your premise through to the logical conclusion: If corporations shouldn't be paying the taxes... who does the burden fall to -- and why do you consider their money less important?
I did prove this and even cited historical examples last time we discussed this. Introducing a flat tax returns a tremendous amount of capital to the economy. This stimulates economic prosperity. Economic prosperity increases the income of everybody and as a result of higher per capita income, the government can make the same amount of income despite taxing everybody at a lower percentage.
For historical examples of this process in action, see the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 which stimulated the most rapid economic expansion America ever underwent, and the Regan tax cuts in 1981 which doubled revenue from 500 billion to 1 trillion. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 11-03-2004 at 05:18 PM.
Maybe it wasn't so funny.
Largely, I'm with Karnaj here.
quote:
Lashanna stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Funny thing about Reagan's administration... Debt.
Deficits don't matter.
I know this because the Republicans told me so.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Maradon!!
I did prove this and even cited historical examples last time we discussed this. Introducing a flat tax returns a tremendous amount of capital to the economy. This stimulates economic prosperity. Economic prosperity increases the income of everybody and as a result of higher per capita income, the government can make the same amount of income despite taxing everybody at a lower percentage.For historical examples of this process in action, see the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 which stimulated the most rapid economic expansion America ever underwent, and the Regan tax cuts in 1981 which doubled revenue from 500 billion to 1 trillion.
It looks like you are saying the Laffer Curve somehow applies to a flat tax? In any case, tax rates are all ready below the point in which they could be lowered to raise revenue.
quote:
JooJooFlop impressed everyone with:
Deficits don't matter.I know this because the Republicans told me so.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9406&fcategory_desc=Legislation%20and%20Policy
Nope, you just keep raising the maximum debt allowed, and everything is peachy!
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Knight Rider:
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9406&fcategory_desc=Le gislation%20and%20PolicyNope, you just keep raising the maximum debt allowed, and everything is peachy!
I hate to use the words bias media, buuuut after a moment perusing that site, I found it to really do nothing but attack republicans.
do you have any other sources?
quote:
Lashanna wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Funny thing about Reagan's administration... Debt.
1) The fact that debt increased doesn't change the fact that revenue doubled.
2) Debt is not always bad. Debt is often the direct and inevitable result of economic growth. In this case, the gross domestic product rises faster than the accrued interest of national debt. Read up on "smart-debt" policy.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Noxhil said this:
It looks like you are saying the Laffer Curve somehow applies to a flat tax? In any case, tax rates are all ready below the point in which they could be lowered to raise revenue.
Taxes on the middle to lower class are, at any rate.
quote:
ACES! Another post by CBTao:
I hate to use the words bias media, buuuut after a moment perusing that site, I found it to really do nothing but attack republicans.do you have any other sources?
Search Google for "7.4 trillion debt limit" and you'll get a bunch of results from other websites.
It's from mid-october though so a lot of them have already archived it.
quote:
Kinanik stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
If Reagan hadn't gone so far into debt, I doubt the USSR would have folded. At least when it did.
Perfect example. Debt is not something to avoid at all costs. Debt accrued through wise investments that raise the GDP pays for itself tenfold. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 11-03-2004 at 06:50 PM.
quote:
Reynar's fortune cookie read:
Nope, you just keep raising the maximum debt allowed, and everything is peachy!
That is, in essence, exactly correct.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Demos:
Doesn't spending into a deficit also raise inflation?
Not nesscessarily, particularly if debt interest is paid off by the rising GDP.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Not nesscessarily, particularly if debt interest is paid off by the rising GDP.
So basically, you're fine until the inevitable depression, when your country will completely collapse.
The first match will be the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama
The Republicans will follow with:
Rudolph Giuliani vs. John McCain
The show will be completely free to view on such stations as ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, and maybe ESPN. Each American votes on a touch tone phone ala American Idol but they will only be able to do one vote per phone number. The winner of the two races will then get to step into the finals to square it out in a No-Holds barred main event that will ultimately find who will be the next President of the Untied States, no questions asked.
Announcers will be Wolf Blitzer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry King, John Madden, and Jerry "The King" Lawler.
I beleive this solves all voting problems too. No longer will we have to wait and wait and wait into the night and into the next morning. It will be decided right there in the site of Americans everywhere.
quote:
frolicking imp had this to say about Knight Rider:
yeah but Obama=Democrat=good
Osama=evil=not good
Let me clarify then: We'll be choosing political candidates over BS?
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about the Spice Girls:
John McCain will probably be way too old to run in 2008.
You think he may age faster than normal?
quote:Until people stop trusting the government to pay them back. Government debt managed in this manner essentially amounts to a pyramid scheme. Borrowed too much and can't pay it back? Well, just borrow some more, and use the new borrowed money to pay off the old borrowed money.
See, your Maradon! means your hair. So technically it's true.
That is, in essence, exactly correct.
The function of the GDP in this equation amounts to how much the government can collect in taxes. The last statistic I saw on the matter showed that 1/3 of all tax revenue goes to paying interest on the national debt. Every time the national debt increases, the GDP must increase permanently by enough to generate additional tax revenues capable of paying off the additional interest. Even if it does manage a sufficient (and permanent) increase, the government still owes more money than it did.
During the Bush administration, the national debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $7.45 trillion. That's an increase of approximately 30% over four years. Using the 1/3 figure given above, that means total revenues collected by the government needed to increase 10% over four years just to cover interest payments.
If taxes are lowered from 60% to 50% on a certain income group, that group needs to earn 20% more to pay the same amount in taxes. Anyone who plans to refute this statement by saying that the government doesn't need as much money because corporations will raise salaries and people can pay for their own needs, see my previous argument about the nature of businesses.
Additional references:
US Treasury Dept
Federal Budget Analysis
quote:
Rodent King wrote this stupid crap:
Let me clarify then: We'll be choosing political candidates over BS?
quote:
Reynar spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Search Google for "7.4 trillion debt limit" and you'll get a bunch of results from other websites.It's from mid-october though so a lot of them have already archived it.
The "OMG the debt is huge LOL" aren't being honest--it's only meaningful as a percentage of GDP, and our debt isn't that bad in that context, especially compared to the rest of the developed world. See the charts I posted in the poll tracking thread. Further, you'll note that some of our foremost economics thinkers, including Greenspan, are in favor of removing the debt ceiling, as it's artificial and hampers wise economic policy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The "OMG the debt is huge LOL" aren't being honest--it's only meaningful as a percentage of GDP, and our debt isn't that bad in that context, especially compared to the rest of the developed world. See the charts I posted in the poll tracking thread. Further, you'll note that some of our foremost economics thinkers, including Greenspan, are in favor of removing the debt ceiling, as it's artificial and hampers wise economic policy.
Yes, it's easier to spend money when you don't care where it's comming from or how much you're spending.
quote:
Noxhil had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
So basically, you're fine until the inevitable depression, when your country will completely collapse.
That would make sense if depressions were caused by rising GDP, but that suggestion is just about the most retarded thing ever concieved, so what you're saying makes about as much sense as talking about Ronald McDonald in the context of gay rights.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when `Doc said:
Until people stop trusting the government to pay them back. Government debt managed in this manner essentially amounts to a pyramid scheme.
No, in this manner the government pays back all debts plus interest plus gets more money to run the country than it had previously, with the excess revenue it's investments generated in the GDP. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 11-04-2004 at 07:06 PM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Tron:
That would make sense if depressions were caused by rising GDP, but that suggestion is just about the most retarded thing ever concieved, so what you're saying makes about as much sense as talking about Ronald McDonald in the context of gay rights.
...
Depressions result in a falling GDP
If the GDP is falling, that means the debt interest will not be paid off.
Surely you just misread what I said, because I never said a depression is caused by a growing GDP. In any capitalist economy there will be inevitable booms and depressions. I think you get my drift.
quote:
Maradon! wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
That would make sense if depressions were caused by rising GDP, but that suggestion is just about the most retarded thing ever concieved, so what you're saying makes about as much sense as talking about Ronald McDonald in the context of gay rights.
Do you know why the great depression happened? How about the tech bubble burst?
Because people invested imaginary money. Things got built on imaginary money. People tried to get real money out, and everything went to shit.
quote:
Blindy.'s account was hax0red to write:
Yes, it's easier to spend money when you don't care where it's comming from or how much you're spending.
That doesn't even track with the conversation.
The entire point of evaluating debt is it's only bad if it's an excessive percentage of your income--GASP!--just like in personal finances. An arbitrary cap is just stupid and hampers intelligent spending decisions, as Greenspan argues. Not sure about you, but I pretty much trust his judgement on economic and monetary issues.
Jeebus, at least try to contribute something relevant to the conversation.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy. stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Do you know why the great depression happened? How about the tech bubble burst?
Two totally different things.
The Great Despression was caused, in part, by industrial overproduction, conusmer underconsumption and large-scale stock pruchases done on margin (which thankfully can no longer be done). Add in weak federal oversight of the banking system and there you go. Banks and the stock market are much more looked after these days, and there are safeguards in place, so I'd the chances of another depression are somewhere between 'thinner than Milla Jovovich' and none.
quote:
Callalron got bored and wrote this:
Two totally different things.The Great Despression was caused, in part, by industrial overproduction, conusmer underconsumption and large-scale stock pruchases done on margin (which thankfully can no longer be done). Add in weak federal oversight of the banking system and there you go. Banks and the stock market are much more looked after these days, and there are safeguards in place, so I'd the chances of another depression are somewhere between 'thinner than Milla Jovovich' and none.
A kate moss joke would have worked just as well, there.
