Halftime in America

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

You are comparing a Third World America of 236 years ago with modern day America and its present infrastructure? Really? And when was the last time that the US had an effective tax rate of 80%, and who's suggesting such a rate now?

Exaggerate much?

You're obfuscating.

Since you'd rather argue than debate, tell me - do you give all your money to charity?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Maverick74:

Deficits are narrowed by more people working and more people paying taxes. Increased taxes and regulations removes labor, not adds it. This means there are fewer people in the workforce contributing to the government.

So there was a massive labor exodus from the economy in 2008 because there was a massive increase in taxes and regulations which reduced business profits to record lows?

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

You're obfuscating.

No, sir. That would be you. I presented you with historical and economic fact. All else is whimsy.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

You are comparing a Third World America of 236 years ago with modern day America and its present infrastructure? Really? And when was the last time that the US had an effective tax rate of 80%, and who's suggesting such a rate now?

Exaggerate much?

You can go on with your faith-based ideals, but history has amply shown that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They do not. Are you concerned about the deficit or are you not? If you are, then you should remember that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and that effective tax rates are lower now than they have been in decades.

History? Okay. Try the Soviet Union, Africa, India, China before 1980, South America, Mexico, the Phillipeans, Indonesia. History has demonstrated quite aptly that the ability to keep what one earns, is overwhelming correlated to wealth creation, the rise of living standards, and GDP growth (all the same shit). I wonder why? Do you work for free, Brass? Do you give all your money away to charity, because unlike the rest of the planet, you're an altruist? Please stay on topic.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

No, sir. That would be you. I presented you with historical and economic fact. All else is whimsy.

You didn't present me with anything. Where are your "facts"? Where are you examples?

You presented a statement and backed it up with nothing.

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

History? Okay. Try the Soviet Union, Africa, India, China before 1980, South America, Mexico, the Phillipeans, Indonesia. History has demonstrated quite aptly that the ability to keep what one earns, is overwhelming correlated to wealth creation, the rise of living standards, and GDP growth (all the same shit). I wonder why? Do you work for free, Brass? Do you give all your money away to charity, because unlike the rest of the planet, you're an altruist? Please stay on topic.

Quote from achilles28:

You didn't present me with anything. Where are your "facts"? Where are you examples?

You presented a statement and backed it up with nothing.

*Sigh*

Relevant history:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...8&highlight=jem+tax+cuts+revenues#post3428058

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

(This must be the 3rd time I posted these links in this thread.)

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Ricter:

So there was a massive labor exodus from the economy in 2008 because there was a massive increase in taxes and regulations which reduced business profits to record lows?

No, but there was an implosion from a FED-induced real estate bubble which caused people to mortgage and speculate their futures, to which they lost, and are still on the hook for the debt. Hence, the reduction in consumption, from which most wages (of those employed) are directed towards paying down mortgage debt (which is destroyed by banks), instead of being spent into the real economy, to generate economic activity.

What you and Brass are doing is exactly what Maverick said - confusing supply-side with demand-side. Demand side caused 2008. Not lower taxes (supply-side). Yes, lower regulation (Glass Stegal) was a big culprit. However, had it not been for an even larger degree of Government intervention (the Greenspan Put), Banks wouldn't have leveraged themselves anywhere near the point they did.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

*Sigh*

Relevant history:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...8&highlight=jem+tax+cuts+revenues#post3428058

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

(This must be the 3rd time I posted these links in this thread.)

I'll respond to this in a bit. Not that any of this changes human nature.

Please answer my questions I asked you. Twice already. You keep dodging them.

1) Do you work for free?

2) Do you give all your wages to charity?

3) Why do you keep any of your wages, at all?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from achilles28:

No, but there was an implosion from a FED-induced real estate bubble which caused people to mortgage and speculate their futures, to which they lost, and are still on the hook for the debt. Hence, the reduction in consumption, from which most wages (of those employed) are directed towards paying down mortgage debt (which is destroyed by banks), instead of being spent into the real economy, to generate economic activity.

What you and Brass are doing is exactly what Maverick said - confusing supply-side with demand-side. Demand side caused 2008. Not lower taxes (supply-side). Yes, lower regulation (Glass Stegal) was a big culprit. However, had it not been for an even larger degree of Government intervention (the Greenspan Put), Banks wouldn't have leveraged themselves anywhere near the point they did.

I would respond with a "BINGO" but a certain busy body Canadian has forbidden
me from doing so. Hey gabby, is it OK if I say "you hit the nail on the head"?

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

I'll respond to this in a bit. Not that any of this changes human nature.

Please answer my questions I asked you. Twice already. You keep dodging them.

1) Do you work for free?

2) Do you give all your wages to charity?

3) Why do you keep any of your wages, at all?

As a matter of policy, I do not answer rhetorical questions.