Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[Brutus]

Terrifying Truth: American Business No Longer Needs American Workers : Sierra Voices[/url]

especially when 1) the liberals create unions that tell Boeing where to operate 2) the liberals import 20 million mexicans to compete with American worker 3) especially when the minimum wage laws cost 5 million jobs 4) especially when the liberal deficits export 5 million jobs to China, 5) especially when corporate taxes are the highest in the world, etc etc.

 

[Zander]

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and we will be fine, economically.

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

 

[Big Fitz]

If the government wants to fix this they will stop spending. They won't spend another dime on ANYTHING that does not absolutely have to be spent.

And then they will focus on making tax payers out of all of those who are not now tax payers.

If you add the first two, it amounts to more than 100%. There's something wrong with that picture, Rush.

:doh:

Or better if you SUBTRACT the smaller from the larger you get the difference of how much more the next 9% add in. And then if you subtract the 64% from the 96% you'll find out how much the remaining 40% of tax payers pay in to the system.

Crazy how that works!

 

[Brutus]

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and we will be fine, economically.

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

not to mention that the rich pay all the taxes now, and so saying they are getting a break is an idiotic liberal lie.

Nothing could be worse for the country than to teach the majority to use our democracy as a means to rip of the minority rich while they pay nothing.

The Bush 2003 supply tax cuts were followed by the largest revenue gains for government in American History!!

 

[Polk]

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and we will be fine, economically.

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

 

[Zander]

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and we will be fine, economically.

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

How about Berkeley? Are they liberal enough for ya???

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

PS- Romer is a democrat.....and a former Obama economic Advisor


Spin away.......

 

[Brutus]

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

how can taxing business help business ???

do you feel that the more capital you take from business the more business will expand and create jobs???

 

[Foxfyre]

By now every business in the country should know how the health reform law is going to affect them. If they don't have access to CPAs, it's all clearly covered on the Internet.

Really Maggie? My CPA says he doesn't have a clue. They haven't finished writing the regulation on it. They won't even write most of the regulation until after the 2012 election so that it won't hurt Obama's election chances.

But since you know exactly how Obamacare would affect my business or that of others in my family who also don't have a clue any more than anyone else, please enlighten us. We've all been waiting for some brilliant soul to explain it.

So explain please.

There are some basic nuts and bolts here:

What Obama's Health Care Reform Means for Small Businesses

And a comprehensive FAQ prepared by Blue Cross here:

Blue Cross Blue Shield

No dear, I want YOU to explain it. You seem so convinced that it's a really good deal. The Inc. article was what was told to everybody before anybody in Congress ever saw the bill so they were reporting what the proponents were telling them. The Blue Cross article was no more helpful other than to confirm that it will be 2013 and 2014 before any of us really know what it's all going to mean--that's safely after two elections so existing culprits, including the President, won't get creamed at the polls in the fallout. Remember this is 2,200 pages of legislation that NOBODY READ before they voted on it. And again, most of the regulations to implement it haven't been written yet. A lot of the new taxes associated it will be kicking in long before any promised benefits do or don't materialize.

But in that kind of incompetent environment, we're expecting small business to trust what government does? I don't. Very very few of those running businesses that I have talked to do. So American business continues to ship jobs overseas where they know what their profits are likely to be and trllions of investment capital continues to be sidelined overseas and domestically until we get somebody running government who can give them some certainty of what to expect.

 

[ShackledNation]

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and we will be fine, economically.

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

When GDP includes government spending in the economy, anything government does not spend will not be included in GDP. Also, it ignores the amount of production the private sector could have produced had the money not been taxed away. The problem with looking soley at GDP is that it counts spending the same even if it is unproductive. (For example, if the government spend 1 trillion digging useless holes in the ground, GDP would count that as 1 trillion in growth).

 

[Brutus]

By now every business in the country should know how the health reform law is going to affect them. If they don't have access to CPAs, it's all clearly covered on the Internet.

wrong wrong wrong!!!! OMG!!!! Sebelius just released a general report on how the exchanges are going to work. It is still very very vague and leaves everyone up in the air 100%. The thrust was, there was a lot of flexibility, but ultimately every last detail would be subject the Sebelius' approval in order to insure it is exactly what she wants. She won't say exactly what she wants at this point because she doesn't know!!!!!God help us!

 

[Polk]

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

How about Berkeley? Are they liberal enough for ya???

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

PS- Romer is a democrat.....and a former Obama economic Advisor


Spin away.......

Looks like someone ignored a key take home point...

"When they consider the two types of exogenous tax changes separately, Romer and Romer find suggestive evidence that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit have much smaller output costs than other tax increases. This is consistent with the idea that deficit-driven tax increases may have important expansionary effects through expectations and long-term interest rates, or through confidence."

 

[Polk]

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

how can taxing business help business ???

do you feel that the more capital you take from business the more business will expand and create jobs???

How do you think cutting taxes for businesses will help? They're already sitting on a giant cash cushion and still aren't hiring.

 

[ShackledNation]

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

how can taxing business help business ???

do you feel that the more capital you take from business the more business will expand and create jobs???

How do you think cutting taxes for businesses will help? They're already sitting on a giant cash cushion and still aren't hiring.

Cutting taxes, notably the payroll tax, encourage the formation of new businesses.

In boom times, companies tend to bloat up in every area, especially in their staffing. Unemployment is always a feature of the bust because businesses shed jobs and expect more efficiency and productivity out of the remaining staff. Many businesses close and lose all employees. Whereas workers once had no problem finding jobs and naming their price, there is now a surplus of workers and a job shortage, at least at the wages that the unemployed are demanding.

What usually fills the gap here are new businesses. In recovery times, entrepreneurs initiate new projects and hire the unemployed workers to staff them. The unemployed are usually willing to work for less and are willing to learn new skills in a new business environment. These new businesses become a major source for economic growth and rising living standards. Yet these new businesses are not forming. Why?

New businesses need to depend on a stable legal environment and a bright outlook for the future. These are both missing. The supposed recovery has been phonied up in every conceivable way: nationalizations, bad debt swept under the carpet, money creation by the Fed, make-work jobs paid for by the taxpayer. No one really believes all the hokum. The question is not whether the recovery is phony; it is, what is real and what is not real? No one knows for sure.

Despite every attempt by the Fed to provide oceans of free credit, banks are still extremely reluctant to lend when the payoff is not there and the risks of lending are extremely high. This means that prospective new businesses have to raise their own capital from a massively depleted capital stock.

Looking at the risks, it makes far more sense to hire no employees beyond temporary contract workers. And that is exactly what is happening.

What's Wrong with the Job Market? - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

 

[Zander]

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

How about Berkeley? Are they liberal enough for ya???

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

PS- Romer is a democrat.....and a former Obama economic Advisor


Spin away.......

Looks like someone ignored a key take home point...

"When they consider the two types of exogenous tax changes separately, Romer and Romer find suggestive evidence that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit have much smaller output costs than other tax increases. This is consistent with the idea that deficit-driven tax increases may have important expansionary effects through expectations and long-term interest rates, or through confidence."

A simple apology works fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

how can taxing business help business ???

do you feel that the more capital you take from business the more business will expand and create jobs???

How do you think cutting taxes for businesses will help? They're already sitting on a giant cash cushion and still aren't hiring.

If they put it out there and make it vulnerable without some assurance of what their tax liability will be next year or on down the road, they are gambling more than they wish to gamble. And when we have a President who makes it very clear he want to go after that cash, they are understandably reluctant to risk it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Simple as that sounds, it is dead wrong. Tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase, depending on which academic study you choose. Large tax increases will reduce GDP and potential GDP. That may be the price we want to pay as a country, but we need to recognize that there is a hit to growth and employment. Those who argue that taking away the Bush tax cuts will have no effect on the economy are simply not dealing with either the facts or the well-established research.

I would love for you to show a real academic study showing "tax increases reduce GDP by anywhere from 1 to 3 times the size of the increase". Of course, I know this post will either be ignored or you'll try to peddle some crap from Heritage, AEI, or Cato.

When GDP includes government spending in the economy, anything government does not spend will not be included in GDP. Also, it ignores the amount of production the private sector could have produced had the money not been taxed away. The problem with looking soley at GDP is that it counts spending the same even if it is unproductive. (For example, if the government spend 1 trillion digging useless holes in the ground, GDP would count that as 1 trillion in growth).

Further, you won't find more competent or reliable numbers to use for this stuff anywhere than the work Heritage and Cato are doing. I haven't seen a full evaluation for AEI, but suspect they are just as competent. Heritage is unashamedly conservative in ideology; Cato staunchly libertarian, but they both take a lot of pride in the research they do, and I don't believe either has ever been challenged on the numbers they use or the hard facts they use in a way anybody could make stick.