Search results

Ok, fair enough. Let's have a look at the numbers for 2013. SS/Medicare = 1,823 Billion Defense = 672 Billion Interest = 246 Billion Those are the things that will either stay the same or rise. Everything Else = 1,060 billion IOW... Cut the entire department of...

Agreed. But the reality is that it is easy to tell the public that you are simply going to freeze spending levels for the next 10 years and give everyone a tax cut. Try telling them that you are going to cap total spending, and since you've already committed to SS/Medicare and defense cuts...

That is true, but the main problem right now isn't that we are creating new and expensive programs. The biggest problems are in trying to maintain the old commitments. Those people counting on their SS checks were told to expect increasing payments. So capping spending must result in cuts...

Good background. BS Econ/Finance here. Also thought about masters, but no time while running my business. I commend you for your political efforts. Tough space to work for me. hard enough dealing with the politics of the corporate space, let alone the politics of the politics space.:D

True, as long as taxes are increased during the expansion. Both sides try to use half of what Keynes said. It can't just be never ending cuts to promote growth and/or never ending increases to pay for programs and debt.

I think it is a lot less cut and dry than you are making it sound. Define what aspects of the tax cuts worked in the past, then we can go with what worked. If you are simply saying that tax cuts resulted in increased revenue, then there is definitely room to debate that. For every tax cut...

Keep in mind that each of those circumstances was preceded by much higher rates than our current climate. Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 90% down to 70% and he called for a corporate tax cut from 52% to 48%. Mellan from 73% down to 24% Reagan cut the top rate from 50% to...

Our tax code is already setup to target certain sectors. I would suggest something completely different if I could, but I thought we were debating in favor of a change in taxation that would have an immediate effect on job creation and economic growth. It is hard for me to buy into the...

My comments were based on the assumption that allowing a complete housing crash would be unacceptable. Thus, if there is going to be intervention, I believe that my proposal would have the best immediate and long lasting effect.

I might also mention that the bulk of negative equity mortgages are homes valued below $200K. It is estimated that there are about 11MM negative equity mortgages right now and almost 2MM could move out of the negative equity group with a mere 5% increase in value. This means that a renovation...

I don't disagree that a contraction was inevitable and necessary in housing. But unfortunately we created a situation in which the entire economy is dependent upon the strength of the real estate market. The discovery of new, more productive areas is not realistic in the short term without...

BTW, no I don't buy into the left's misunderstanding of business. I simply also don't buy into the right's delusions of business.

Take that same model and assume that the gment would send you a check for the lesser of $25K or 40% of the renovation costs on those flips. As it pertains only to the profit generated by flipping those buildings, would you rather have that subsidy/credit or a 10% lower tax rate next April?

yes, but in the context of politics, it is a very useful term that should be more widely utilized. E.G. A dyslogistic description of abortions rights activists would be pro-abortion. The eulogistic term would be pro-choice. Both are correct in their description, but paint either a...

No, I don't think it is the business of the gment to attempt to extract as much money as possible from the population. On the contrary, I think that it is the fiduciary responsibility of elected representatives to minimize required taxation as much as is possible without resulting in increased...

This is true, but there are better and more direct ways to accomplish this IMO. Subsidies and credits are a much more efficient and direct form of stimulus if that is the chosen direction. I would argue that the idea is not to encourage investment at this point. For the most part...

Don't put words in my mouth. I never argued for or against any particular level of tax revenue. Only that it is very illogical to assume that we are past the peak of the Laffer Curve. The post was mainly aimed at the idea that it is actually the Laffer Curve that suggests that up until some...

If people are going to make an argument in favor of certain policy, it doesn't do them any good to avoid reality. Obama completely avoided reality during his 2008 campaign and he is suffering for it now. Both campaigns are completely avoiding reality this time around. If it keeps going this...

Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of the Laffer Curve constantly being misrepresented, even by Mr. Laffer himself. It is thrown around so casually that it has come to be supportive of never ending tax cuts. That is not what the theory indicates. In fact it is far from it. The Laffer...

The only actual tax return that we've seen thus far is 13.9% and it is well documented that the average effective rate for households $50-70K is around 12.5%. All else is just speculation.