Tax Revenues Mystify Democrats - Page 4

6SpeedTA95 · 07-23-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

I must say, i'm impressed with how much you've studied the great depression. Economics major?

No, I had enough classes to minor in it though

I started getting into economics as a kid, then really got into it as I got into high school and college

Edit: I started reading up on the great depression when my grandpa a devout republican used to talk about how good FDR was. He'd be taking us home from school (when I was in elementary school ) and we'd be talking about politics, economics etc and he said something about FDR who we'd just talked about in history class. So basically I started reading about it then but obviously being in 4th or 5th grade didn't know a lot about even what I was reading. However, I already liked politics at that time and this just seemed to further my interest in it.

Thorgrim · 07-23-2006, 05:16 PM

Well 6speed, we both know economics is not a hard science, out of any field, economics is the one where you can twist data the most to fit your theory

That being said, I think he was about to get us out of the depression until he tried the conservative policy of balancing the budget during a depression. After that we were growing again once he corrected that mistake.

Yes, you're right and no one has ever challenged that it was WW2 that truely got us out of the depression, but Sweden did it in 1934 with no war.

Also, there is more to attacking the GD than just "how was the economy each year" its what people saw and believed. Many MANY people thought Capitalism had failed, maybe something new was needed, a 1/3 of americans were without jobs in a country full of guns, a communist revolution was not out of the question. From the right, conservative business leaders were trying to recruit generals to usurp power.

FDR was key during the Great Depression as reaching out to the left to soothe the masses, yet not going too far to alienate middle America. That is why I and many Americans consider him to be such a great President

ballz2wallz · 07-23-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

You know, I know a lot of college graduates who are working in call centers. Some with masters degrees... and they aren't even management. I wouldn't really count that as a success

why don't they have better jobs?

if it's because they aren't available, then perhaps they got the wrong masters degree. alternatively, if the jobs they want are not available, they should be happy they even have the job they have, because if the economy were worse, they'd have none at all.

TekDragon · 07-23-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Well 6speed, we both know economics is not a hard science

This from the guy that quotes Keynes like it's gospel despite the fact that there isn't a single finance teacher (even at the micro/macro level) that won't point out the numerous flaws.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-23-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

This from the guy that quotes Keynes like it's gospel despite the fact that there isn't a single finance teacher (even at the micro/macro level) that won't point out the numerous flaws.

I dunno that he was saying it was perfect, though you almost get that impression reading his posts. After chatting with him via AIM the other night I know he doesn't think its flawless

Hedweb Buddha · 07-24-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yeah and the link fails to recognize that during the depression unemployment varied from 25 to 38% it further fails to acknowledge that many of the jobs were VERY low paying. High taxes take away incentive to create NEW supply which is what drives an economy forward. Hence the absolutely stagnant 1930s when the TOP marginal rates exceeded 90% starting in 1937. Raising taxes did nothing to help the country during the depression in fact its the one thing that hoover and FDR are criticized for even by economist that support higher taxes.

That is a very poor argument. If you don't like the 1937 stats just look at some other year. Look at 1913, 1870 or 1950.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

As for high taxes taking away incentives, why isn't economic growth tied into tax rate? Would you like to know some other ways to cut business expenses?

Universal healthcare - an employer can spend up to 8-10k per employee on healthcare. Universal healthcare will cut this cost dramatically.
Green & renewable technology - creating cleaner, greener more energy efficient tools can cut endless millions out of business expenses. Every dollar not spent on energy (due to higher efficiency) can instead be spent on hiring new people

http://www.staywarmnh.org/businesstips.htm

Poor personal lives - workplace bullying, alcoholism & depression cut into billions of lost productivity in the workplace. They lead to more turnover, less producitivity, more sick days and more wasted time at work. Actively addressing these things an do a major amount to increase productiivty.

Any of those 3 will drastically help US businesses grow. I'd support them over a tax cut on an economy running 300 billion deficits.

I'd wager that with universal healthcare, an active attempt to voluntarily address personal issues at work and at home that cut into productivity and renewable tech a company could easily save 10k+ per employee. What will a tax cut save, 1k?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-24-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hedweb Buddha

That is a very poor argument. If you don't like the 1937 stats just look at some other year. Look at 1913, 1870 or 1950.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

As for high taxes taking away incentives, why isn't economic growth tied into tax rate? Would you like to know some other ways to cut business expenses?

It's not a poor argument its FACT. The economy was struggling big time and much of the reason the depression was so deep and lasted so long was due in part to repeated tax increases and tarrifs going through the roof. It's all on the record and out there for you to look up.

Economic growth is tied to tax rates which is why major tax cuts have led to major economic growth. Kennedy was the first modern day tax cutter and it worked, and worked DAMN well. Reagan did it again and once again it worked. This administration has done it and once again the economy is doing very well with very strong first quarter growth.

As for healthcare, thats for a different thread, I have mixed feelings on it for the very reasons you mentioned.
I'm against government run healthcare and if you look at the facts, healthcare has gotten more expensive with each piece of major legislation that affects healthcare. In other words the more the government gets its fingers in it the more expensive it gets.
However, I see your point, and I've pondered it many times and that is the huge drain that healthcare is on businesses right now. However, I dont believe government run healthcare is the answer, I think the government butting the hell out is the answer.

But I find your solution the more likely of the two

Hedweb Buddha · 07-24-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

It's not a poor argument its FACT. The economy was struggling big time and much of the reason the depression was so deep and lasted so long was due in part to repeated tax increases and tarrifs going through the roof. It's all on the record and out there for you to look up. :

Talking about the depression is a red herring. I posted info showing even with 5% tax rates the US economy actually growed slower than it does now with 32% tax rates. It growed slower with 11% tax rates, slower with 25% rates so where is your evidence that low taxes = economic growth?

Why does europe grow with 35-50% tax rates?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/21/news...reut/index.htm

"The European Commission said recently there may be a slight dip in euro zone growth in the third quarter before a fresh spurt in the fourth to yield an annual figure of 2.1 percent or more this year after 1.3 percent in 2005."

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Economic growth is tied to tax rates which is why major tax cuts have led to major economic growth. Kennedy was the first modern day tax cutter and it worked, and worked DAMN well. Reagan did it again and once again it worked. This administration has done it and once again the economy is doing very well with very strong first quarter growth. :

That philosophy fails to explain why economic growth isn't slower in the EU. Why does China grow at 10% a year when they have taxes?

China collected 158 billion in taxes in 2000 on an economy of 1.1 trillion. That is a 15% tax rate. What is the connection? 5% US economy = 1.5% growth, China at 15% is a 10% growth rate, the EU at 35-50% is a 2% growth rate. It seems infrastructure is a bigger predictor of economic growth.

http://english.people.com.cn/english...104_59588.html

http://www.china.org.cn/english/8529.htm

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

As for healthcare, thats for a different thread, I have mixed feelings on it for the very reasons you mentioned.
I'm against government run healthcare and if you look at the facts, healthcare has gotten more expensive with each piece of major legislation that affects healthcare. In other words the more the government gets its fingers in it the more expensive it gets.
However, I see your point, and I've pondered it many times and that is the huge drain that healthcare is on businesses right now. However, I dont believe government run healthcare is the answer, I think the government butting the hell out is the answer.

But I find your solution the more likely of the two

I think it is relevant. we are talking about how to cut business expenses and UHC is a very effective method for doing that. UHC will probably cut business expenses dramatically, more than a tax cut could.

I don't know of any evidence that gov. intervention increases costs though. Why do we pay 16% of GDP for healthcare when countries with taxpayer funded UHC pay 7-12%? Read the book healthcare meltdown, it is pretty informative.

kinggovernor · 07-24-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Hedweb Buddha

That is a very poor argument. If you don't like the 1937 stats just look at some other year. Look at 1913, 1870 or 1950.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

great source

ballz2wallz · 07-24-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

great source

kinggovernor · 07-24-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Tom Huppi, international master of the depression................and fishing

6SpeedTA95 · 07-24-2006, 01:50 PM

Who's trying to say infrastructure is unimportant? I'm not, but the fact is the two biggest post war economic booms came after major tax cuts. When kennedy made sweeping tax cuts and when Reagan made sweeping tax cuts the economy grew.

The EU economy doesn't grow as fast as the US, in fact they revised their growth up at the end of last year to all of 2.4% from the original 2.2% prediction. This is above average growth for the EU when you consider during our recession our growth slipped below 2% for only one quarter I think you can see the correlation. ECONOMIC GROWTH IS SLOWER IN THE EU! Quit acting like its not.

Thorgrim · 07-24-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Tom Huppi, international master of the depression................and fishing

Actually the guy who wrote the article is Steve Kangas, who according to the police, killed himself outside Richard Scaife's office in 1998

Sad considering I talked to him via email all the time and he was a great guy

It was a real blow to the liberal community, but its not really mentioned because he was before blogs