US going to hell in a hand basket?

[Trader5287]

I wonder if alot of American prosperity today isn't really an illusion. Foreigners own trillions of dollars more worth of US assets, than the US owns of foreign assets. Most people don't even think about it.

I don't think that huge rate of homeownership in the US, nearing 70%, is an illusion. Out here in the fields, nothing gives one pride of place more - even if it is a low income setup, trailer, etc. ...

Geo.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from tatertrader:



After the Reagan revolution and it's disastrous experiment with supply-side economics it took 5 (FIVE) consecutive tax INCREASES and 15 (FIFTEEN) years to balance the federal budget.

Supply side economics is simply mortgaging the future for short-term, unsustainable effect.

So the answer to our current deficit is just to raise taxes to maybe 80 or 90% of income? That should make things just great. And so poor people aren't hurt, we can raise the minimum wage to $75k a year. In fact, that would help balance the budget because then they would be "rich" and we could tax the crap out of them.

 

[tatertrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



So the answer to our current deficit is just to raise taxes to maybe 80 or 90% of income? That should make things just great. And so poor people aren't hurt, we can raise the minimum wage to $75k a year. In fact, that would help balance the budget because then they would be "rich" and we could tax the crap out of them.

If that post is indicative of your grasp of economics it is no wonder you have no tax liability to worry about.

 

[hardrock375]

I think he might have been using a bit of hyperbole and tongue-in-cheek humor to illustrate his point.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I'm just following your logic. Since cutting taxes automatically results in a deficit, the obvious answer must be to raise them. You seem to think people just ignore incentives and act like farm animals, so why not take advantage of it?

 

[tatertrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I'm just following your logic. Since cutting taxes automatically results in a deficit, the obvious answer must be to raise them. You seem to think people just ignore incentives and act like farm animals, so why not take advantage of it?

No - I told you the truth about the real effects of trickle-down economic policy as it has been practiced in this country.

And your reply is some absurd knee-jerk hyperbole about taxes?

And here you post more snide sarcasm?

You'd be a shoe-in for an anchor gig on FoxNews. They like that kind of banter. Totally devoid of intellectual value - but gets the fists pounding air - where they can't flip the channel on the remote.

 

[axeman]

What sarcasm? I think his reply was perfectly valid.
Why not address its flaws, since you think they exist?
I want to hear your counter argument.


peace

axeman

Quote from tatertrader:



No - I told you the truth about the real effects of trickle-down economic policy as it has been practiced in this country.

And your reply is some absurd knee-jerk hyperbole about taxes?

And here you post more snide sarcasm?

You'd be a shoe-in for an anchor gig on FoxNews. They like that kind of banter. Totally devoid of intellectual value - but gets the fists pounding air - where they can't flip the channel on the remote.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You seem to think people just ignore incentives and act like farm animals, so why not take advantage of it?

It's a question of how much incentive they need.

Guys like you act as though no would ever consider starting/expanding business unless it was going to be tax free, oh no.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Either incentives matter or they do not. It seems self-evident to me that they do. Supply side economics is focused on quantifying those effects, and structuring fiscal policy for maximum economic performance. You have to wonder about the motivations of those who find this so threatening.

To say that the Reagan revolution produced deficits proves nothing. First of all, Congress reneged on promises to reduce spending. Second, we faced a determined and aggressive Soviet adversary in the end game of the Cold War. We faced the Soviet bear with a demoralized military after the disastrous Carter presidency and we faced him with a hollowed out military. Reagan had two choices--rebuild the military or negotiate a surrender. He chose the former and ended up defeating world communism. Most would say a few years of deficit spending were a small price to pay for ending that threat.

 

[axeman]

Ever hear of the fallacy of "false alternatives" ?
I hope so, because you just commited it.

This is not a black or white issue.

The "incentive" is on a grey scale. No one ever said
it had to be tax free, although this would be
the most attractive.

The higher the taxes, the less the incentive.

Is it really that difficult to see?

As a businessman, who is taking an enormous risk
attempting to grow his business, where would you want to
to offer stock so you can raise money to invest back
into your company???

1) In a country with a 75% cap gains tax
2) In a country with a 50% cap gains tax
3) In a country with a 25% cap gains tax
4) In a country with a 0% cap gains tax

?????????? Which country is going to attract
people to risk money on the business mans stock
over other less risk investments?

As an investor, after you do the risk/reward calculation on
purchasing this stock versus a less risky investment with
a lower interest rate, things start looking real bad
as the cap gains rate gets higher.

A business man in country #1 with a 75% cap gains
tax will have a hard time selling any stock at all!


The same applies to personal income.

Given the following choices, how much would you
be willing to bust your ass working in:


1) A country with 90% income tax, and 70% welfare benefits
2) A country with 80% income tax, and 60% welfare benefits
3) A country with 70% income tax, and 50% welfare benefits
4) A country with 60% income tax, and 40% welfare benefits
5) A country with 45% income tax, and 30% welfare benefits
6) A country with 30% income tax, and 10% welfare benefits
7) A country with 10% income tax, and 0% welfare benefits


Clearly, country #1 is going to attract all the leaches in the world.
You would be an idiot to work hard and try to get ahead in
country #1 when you can just collect the government payout
and let the suckers support you.

Country #7 would be the worst place for leaches, and the
easiest place to accumlate wealth. All the ass kickers and
driven types would be attracted to #7.

Who is going to have the better economy on this scale?

peace

axeman

Quote from alfonso:




It's a question of how much incentive they need.

Guys like you act as though no would ever consider starting/expanding business unless it was going to be tax free, oh no.