Op Ed: Fmr Dem Sec Treas says Raise Taxes

[Gan]

Rubin's Tax Gambit
Raising taxes in a housing slump isn't the smartest policy.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST


That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.

"You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues," declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy." The economics and politics here are worth parsing.

We suppose it's reassuring that Mr. Rubin now thinks the economy is strong enough to withstand a tax increase. That's a switch from his opposition to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which he predicted would bust the budget and do little for growth. The U.S. economy proceeded to grow by an average of nearly 4% a year for three years following mid-2003, until the recent slowdown due largely to the housing slump.

Everyone makes mistakes, but raising taxes amid a housing decline doesn't sound like brilliant policy to us. Depending on inflation signals in the coming weeks, the Federal Reserve may not be done raising interest rates. The best hope for avoiding a recession next year and into 2008 is that strong corporate profits and the tight job market will lift business investment and consumer spending enough to offset the impact of tighter monetary policy. The last thing the economy needs now is a tax increase, too.

And what are the urgent "fiscal problems" that justify a tax increase, anyway? As the nearby chart shows, federal revenues in fiscal 2006 were 18.4% of GDP, higher than the 18.2% post-1965 average. In October, the first month of fiscal 2007, revenues rose by 12% from a year earlier. Mr. Rubin thinks this windfall isn't enough; perhaps he wants to return to the late Clinton years, when the feds grabbed a record 20.9% of GDP and taxpayers demanded a refund by endorsing George W. Bush's tax cut proposal in the election of 2000.

By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975. Add in the budget surpluses at the state level, and the overall U.S. fiscal "deficit" is economically trivial. It is all but irrelevant to Mr. Rubin's complaint that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.


Mr. Rubin's "fiscal problems" riff is really a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, using future entitlement problems to justify a tax increase today. He knows all too well that not a dime of new revenue raised today would be "saved" or otherwise devoted to paying for future Social Security or Medicare benefits. They would be spent on other things by the current Congress, just as today's surplus payroll tax revenues are spent, and just as they were spent when Mr. Rubin was at Treasury in the 1990s.

If Mr. Rubin wants to help reduce the future entitlement benefits he frets so much about, he could always support reforming those programs. Yet when President Bush invited him to participate in a bipartisan entitlement commission last year, Mr. Rubin refused.

Which is why we suspect that Mr. Rubin's real game here is politics. The Citigroup Inc. executive is part of Hillary Rodham Clinton's braintrust, and he and she would like nothing better than to coax Mr. Bush into raising taxes in the next two years. That would take the tax issue off the table in 2008, while splintering Republicans the way President George H.W. Bush's tax-hike deal with George Mitchell did going into 1992.

And if a tax increase did contribute to a severe slowdown or recession, Republicans as the incumbent party in the White House would get the political blame. Recall how Bill Clinton pinned the recession of 1990-1991 on Mr. Bush and Reaganomics, even though the Gipper had left office long before and the economy was growing at a 4% annual rate by late 1992. Readers may recall who won that election.

By the way, how does Mr. Rubin continue to dodge any historical accountability for the dot-com bust of 2000 and the recession that followed? In the liberal economic narrative, we are supposed to believe that the Clinton Administration somehow ended in 1999, and that Mr. Bush is to blame for everything that followed. Yet the Nasdaq peak came in the spring of 2000 and the third quarter of that year recorded negative growth. The shallow recession began in March 2001, with slower-than-average growth continuing until the tax cuts on dividends and the top marginal income rate passed in 2003 and the expansion moved into high gear.

If Mr. Rubin and Senator Clinton really believe the economy needs a big tax increase, by all means they should make this a plank in their 2008 agenda. But they shouldn't do so by asking fellow Democrats to betray their recent campaign pledges or Republicans to make it easier for them by repeating the GOP's blunder of the early 1990s.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009243

[TheEschaton]

Why don't they ever put the author on their website editorials? Damn you WSJ.

Anyways, politics as usual, I suppose. I doubt Rubin's proposing raising taxes on the people who would be affected by a housing slump. I also find it hilarious to suggest the people were so pissed by the 20.9% of GDP during Clinton's last year that they voted Bush in as a pure endorsement of his tax cuts.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

We suppose it's reassuring that Mr. Rubin now thinks the economy is strong enough to withstand a tax increase. That's a switch from his opposition to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which he predicted would bust the budget and do little for growth.

How is that a "Switch"?

Whoever wrote this is definately a winner.

[TheEschaton]

Conservatives can't fathom the idea that tax increases could STRENGTHEN a weak economy, which is what Rubin is suggesting.

Therefore, in this logic: opposing tax cuts because the economy is too weak is antithetical to supporting tax increases, which the average conservative believes can only be supported in a "strong" economy.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Raising taxes is just punishing the people for the spending habits of the government. With a record low inflation rates already being seen, you're going to see a huge revenue gain in taxes this holiday season with people hitting the retail sector hard with their disposable income (which buys more for the dollar than during high inflationary periods).
After the holiday season, when folks finish paying off their holiday debts and end of year taxes, you'll see a jump in the housing market as people gear up for the spring housing rush that typically happens.

Raising taxes just pulls that money out of their hands. Instead of punishing the people, lets put the burden on the government to be more fiscally responsible and control expenditures to match the already rising receipts to the lowering outlays.

[Back]

Haha, yeah right. The middle class eager to spend their extra $300 this christmas. The upper 1% is going to enjoy their $20,000 extra ON-TOP of the savings they get through tax code loopholes and off-shore accounts.

[Daniel]

With a record low inflation rates already being seen, you're going to see a huge revenue gain in taxes this holiday season with people hitting the retail sector hard with their disposable income

^

You'll also see inflation from the surging expenditure of capital. Hence the pre-emption.

Just because things can be going well, doesn't mean you just automaticly assume that continuing the same thing will produce the same effects.

Inflation is a weird beast that can easily spiral out of control. That's why we keep pressures on it (from both sides) regardless of wtf the IMF and other international organizations have to say about it.



lets put the burden on the government to be more fiscally responsible and control expenditures to match the already rising receipts to the lowering outlays.

Except, things like social security and medicare have absolutely nothing to do with present circumstances and have been issues in the making for decades that have to be addressed today. Even if the USG got smart, and fixed the problem tomorrow you would still have to deal with yesterday's legacy today.

If anything, the reason for the 2000 dot com bust was because the government did not do enough to curb increased spending in sectors that could not support the growth. Which is exactly what you are suggesting we do today.

The housing sector burst because it was operating at unsustainable rates. To suggest that we should artifically inflate the sector for encouraging growth is preposterous, and exactly what we should not do. We should allow it to come back into reality and then let it run its course.

[Gan]

Haha, yeah right. The middle class eager to spend their extra $300 this christmas. The upper 1% is going to enjoy their $20,000 extra ON-TOP of the savings they get through tax code loopholes and off-shore accounts.

So we should penalize the rich just because they have money?

Come up with some real offset taxable numbers instead of the rhethroical answer and we'll talk.

[Daniel]

Talk about a loaded question.

Here's one:

Should the rich pay for their disportionate wealth and status in the country that allows them to maintain it?

The rich benefit more than any other group from the US Status Quo. Why should they not contribute to it's general well being?

They above all, should have a vested interest in maintaining the prosperity of the country as a whole, and yet they are the most likely to fuck it over for a buck.

Interesting.

[HarmNone]

:popcorn:

Ah, Daniel, I love ya! Now this thread is really getting interesting.

[Gan]

With a record low inflation rates already being seen, you're going to see a huge revenue gain in taxes this holiday season with people hitting the retail sector hard with their disposable income

^

You'll also see inflation from the surging expenditure of capital. Hence the pre-emption.

Just because things can be going well, doesn't mean you just automaticly assume that continuing the same thing will produce the same effects.

Part of that expenditure in capital will be for labor, which translates into a raise in wage earnings. An increase in capital expenditures does not always equate to a rise in inflation.



Inflation is a weird beast that can easily spiral out of control. That's why we keep pressures on it (from both sides) regardless of wtf the IMF and other international organizations have to say about it.
Agreed, but the Federal Reserve is better equipped to deal with inflation through monetary policy than the government is through fiscal policy. This is one area that the politicians need to keep their fingers out of. The first by-product of raising taxes is a slowing of the economy due to less public spending. People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation. Thats Economics 101.



Except, things like social security and medicare have absolutely nothing to do with present circumstances and have been issues in the making for decades that have to be addressed today. Even if the USG got smart, and fixed the problem tomorrow you would still have to deal with yesterday's legacy today.
No doubt that G needs to be aware of the eminent rise in those mandated costs; however, there are other things that can be curtailed responsibly that are not mandated costs (discretionary costs). Becomming more fiscal responsible is the first step.



If anything, the reason for the 2000 dot com bust was because the government did not do enough to curb increased spending in sectors that could not support the growth. Which is exactly what you are suggesting we do today.
So the government should step in and regulate the stock markets? Thats never a good solution. And I'm not suggesting anything of the like today... I'm supporting fiscal responsiblity through market-regulated corrections and monetary policy, not raising taxes through fiscal policy.



The housing sector burst because it was operating at unsustainable rates. To suggest that we should artifically inflate the sector for encouraging growth is preposterous, and exactly what we should not do. We should allow it to come back into reality and then let it run its course.
Who suggested we artifically inflate the housing sector? Only overpriced sections of the housing market are experiencing the slump, like east coast, west coast, florida gulf coast where the property values were artifically inflated. Now those markets are seeing a correction. Add to that the cyclical effects of typical housing purchases, which right now we are in the holiday slowdown. Minus those overpriced areas, there are all the other markets where we saw little to no correction in pricing or demand. Now add to that the cyclical upswing of demand in the spring time when housing construction and mortgage applications rise, and you'll see that things are where they should be. Adding an additional tax burden to that will only stifle the effect it will have in adding to the economy.

[Parkbandit]

Flat tax system.

And is it a real shocker that the Democrats ran on "We won't raise your taxes" and they plan on it anyway? Who's really shocked by this?

Almost like they promised to get us out of Iraq.. but really have no plans to do so anytime soon.

It's like they look at today and forget about the future. 2008 has never looked brighter for this country.. knowing we'll elect another Republican in the WH and regain the House and Senate. 2 years of headaches in exchange of 4-8 years of prosperity. I'll take it.

[Gan]

Talk about a loaded question.

Here's one:

Should the rich pay for their disportionate wealth and status in the country that allows them to maintain it?

The rich benefit more than any other group from the US Status Quo. Why should they not contribute to it's general well being?

They above all, should have a vested interest in maintaining the prosperity of the country as a whole, and yet they are the most likely to fuck it over for a buck.

Interesting.

So who pays more in federal income under the current graduated scale?

A person making 50K a year in the 15% tax bracket or the person making 200K a year in the 35% bracket? The math shows that indeed the rich contribute to the tax revenue of G in absense of the loop holes and shelters.

Now if you're saying that the rich have too many tax shelters that prevent them from paying their taxes at the same level as those who are not rich, then I'm in agreement. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the loop holes and leveling the playing field.

[Gan]

:popcorn:

Ah, Daniel, I love ya! Now this thread is really getting interesting.

Please keep it on topic.

[HarmNone]

Flat tax system.

And is it a real shocker that the Democrats ran on "We won't raise your taxes" and they plan on it anyway? Who's really shocked by this?

Almost like they promised to get us out of Iraq.. but really have no plans to do so anytime soon.

It's like they look at today and forget about the future. 2008 has never looked brighter for this country.. knowing we'll elect another Republican in the WH and regain the House and Senate. 2 years of headaches in exchange of 4-8 years of prosperity. I'll take it.

Whoa. Where does it say the Democrats plan to raise taxes? The article says Rubin suggested that taxes be raised.

[Gan]

Whoa. Where does it say the Democrats plan to raise taxes? The article says Rubin suggested that taxes be raised.

I'm hoping they wont. I'm hoping they will let the Fed do what its supposed to do. Only time will tell. If they do raise taxes, it will be political suicide for them in 2008. If they get the Republicans to raise taxes, it will remove the issue from the table in 2008.

[ElanthianSiren]

When Dem's talk about raising taxes, they are mostly talking about rolling back the tax cuts Republicans put in for the wealthiest 1%. In most of the dem campaigns that I followed, they were talking about dispersing that money among the middle class and giving a college credit to those families supporting students (something that Bush promised to do prior to approving the slash of funding to college education). Yoding that many of my political ideas came from my father, who basically raised me, I can say I don't have a problem with it and wouldn't if I was personally in the 1% either.

The view we have in general: You were born in or immigrated to America. You likely took advantage of things like student loans, public education, and other common programs. What's wrong with giving back to the country that you live in that has helped you reach the status of the very rich?

I don't see a problem with rolling back the tax cuts. There are a few things I'd liked fixed though too: 1. 100,000 dollar hammers and their ilk. 2. programs like the road to nowhere in Alaska. 3. non bid contracts. And of course, the loopholes first mentioned. The problem is a contributed to from both sides of the sector.

If we're going to discuss what tax policies lost what voters, it's been proposed that the middle class flocked to the Dems in the last election in a level unseen since prior to 1992 partly because of this administration's courting of the excessively rich.

-M
edit: Also, I assume they're talking about that because Rubin mentioned that it won't hurt them much. If you raise taxes on the middle class, it will hurt you. If you raise taxes on the very wealthy, who tend to vote Republican anyway, most will probably take it as business as usual. He should have been clearer.
editedit: I'd rather have seen the original speech by Rubin, if that was unclear.
editeditEDIT: I should also add that the phenomena that the author predicts will happen this year with regard to retail happens pretty much EVERY year. It's a trend, which is why I told you all to buy your JCP calls in an earlier thread; yes, I was being serious, and if you'd bought where I'd said to, you'd be up a few bucks.

[Daniel]

So who pays more in federal income under the current graduated scale?

A person making 50K a year in the 15% tax bracket or the person making 200K a year in the 35% bracket? The math shows that indeed the rich contribute to the tax revenue of G in absense of the loop holes and shelters.

Now if you're saying that the rich have too many tax shelters that prevent them from paying their taxes at the same level as those who are not rich, then I'm in agreement. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the loop holes and leveling the playing field.

What is your point?

I'm not following. I'm fully aware that the we have a progressive tax system. That doesn't follow that it shouldn't be more or less progessive depending on the circumstances. Unless you feel that something like taxs (numbers) come in only "On" and "Off".

Are you trying to suggest that the top 1% of the population that would feel a repel of Bush's tax credits would somehow "Suffer"?

Do you think taxes as they exist are too restricting and ultimately stifle growth, and the business spirit?

You make no coherent argument. Please remedy that. If you do, please answer my question as to why the Rich shouldn't or should be expected to support the country that protects their assets and interests. Thanks.


P.s. Closing those loop holes in taxes would require alot of revenue, and thus would result in a higher collection of taxes, or a higher fiscal deficiet. How do you propose to make this happen with LESS money?

[Daniel]

People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation.

^

How does increased savings cause a devaluation of the dollar as opposed to an increase in spending?

Please explain this. I beg you.

[Gan]

People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation.

^

How does increased savings cause a devaluation of the dollar as opposed to an increase in spending?

Please explain this. I beg you.

1. Please learn to quote. Its a pretty simple operation with bullitenboards.

2. I was wrong with inflation, I meant to say deflation. Tax stimulated saving decreases the M1 money supply. Less spending means less revenue for businesses. Less business revenue means cuts in production, which means less money being paid to workers, which means less pay, possible layoffs or flex time off, and ergo less money to save. Its a viscious cycle. Businesses can either lower prices in the short run in order to attract buyers, or in the long run be forced to either raise prices and or cut production in order to remain profitable and competetive. Either way its the worker/average consumer that loses out.

[Daniel]

2. I was wrong with inflation, I meant to say deflation.

^

That's what I thought.

Deflation is no where near a concern with the US economy. We have a pretty sizable deficient to counteract before it is.

[Daniel]

Please learn to quote. Its a pretty simple operation with bullitenboards.

^

Spelling is a pretty simple operation and you've yet to master that. Why should I bother?

[Gan]

2. I was wrong with inflation, I meant to say deflation.

^

That's what I thought.

Deflation is no where near a concern with the US economy. We have a pretty sizable deficient to counteract before it is.

And yet you conveinently forget the second half of what was discussed just to focus on a mistake I made.

The concern for the economy is that raising taxes is a bad thing for the economy, and it just screws the little guy who has to work an hourly wage every day for a living. Yea prices get lowered in the short run, but its hard to take advanatge of lower prices if you get laid off because companies are trimming back production because of a decrease in demand.
:clap:

[Parkbandit]

Spelling is a pretty simple operation and you've yet to master that. Why should I bother?



Just because things can be going well, doesn't mean you just automaticlyassume that continuing the same thing will produce the same effects.


Pointing out someone's flaws when you have the same issue makes you look stupid. Thankfully, I had to only look in this thread for an example.

[HarmNone]

And yet you conveinently forget the second half of what was discussed just to focus on a mistake I made.

The concern for the economy is that raising taxes is a bad thing for the economy, and it just screws the little guy who has to work an hourly wage every day for a living. Yea prices get lowered in the short run, but its hard to take advanatge of lower prices if you get laid off because companies are trimming back production because of a decrease in demand.
:clap:

Ahem. It seems to me you were the first to focus on an error made by the poster before focussing on the subject at hand, Ganalon. This from you:



1. Please learn to quote. Its a pretty simple operation with bullitenboards.

2. I was wrong with inflation, I meant to say deflation. Tax stimulated saving decreases the M1 money supply. Less spending means less revenue for businesses. Less business revenue means cuts in production, which means less money being paid to workers, which means less pay, possible layoffs or flex time off, and ergo less money to save. Its a viscious cycle. Businesses can either lower prices in the short run in order to attract buyers, or in the long run be forced to either raise prices and or cut production in order to remain profitable and competetive. Either way its the worker/average consumer that loses out.

Now, if you want this to remain on topic, I'd suggest you make the same effort to keep it there that you so easily demand of others.

[Daniel]

And yet you conveinently forget the second half of what was discussed just to focus on a mistake I made.

The concern for the economy is that raising taxes is a bad thing for the economy, and it just screws the little guy who has to work an hourly wage every day for a living. Yea prices get lowered in the short run, but its hard to take advanatge of lower prices if you get laid off because companies are trimming back production because of a decrease in demand.
:clap:

Let's go back to the beginning Ganalon. Your arguments about inflation are NULL AND VOID, because you lack understanding of what causes inflation , or "Economics 101" as you like ot call it.

If you want to argue, then please go back to where you forgot the basic fundamentals.

Until you are capable of grasping "Economics 101". There is no reason for me to continue debating you.

[Daniel]

This is one area that the politicians need to keep their fingers out of. The first by-product of raising taxes is a slowing of the economy due to less public spending. People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation. Thats Economics 101.


^

You changed your post, still missed the point and still manage to cheapen the value of that "Economics" degree you like to flaunt. Fantastic.

[DeV]

Pointing out someone's flaws when you have the same issue makes you look stupid. Thankfully, I had to only look in this thread for an example.Actually, it makes the person doing the initial calling out look pretty damn stupid.

[Daniel]

Pointing out someone's flaws when you have the same issue makes you look stupid. Thankfully, I had to only look in this thread for an example.

Thanks for catching the point PB. You might want to be careful though, talking about Ganalon like that might undermine your chances in 2008.

Way to follow along. ;)

[Gan]

Ahem. It seems to me you were the first to focus on an error made by the poster before focussing on the subject at hand, Ganalon. This from you:



Now, if you want this to remain on topic, I'd suggest you make the same effort to keep it there that you so easily demand of others.

And yet that very post did cover the topic at hand. Tell me what you've lent to this discussion?

In effect, his retort failed to address point #2. Whereas I did try to keep it on topic instead of just making a flaming post about someone's inability to manipulate a simple bbs.

[Gan]

Let's go back to the beginning Ganalon. Your arguments about inflation are NULL AND VOID, because you lack understanding of what causes inflation , or "Economics 101" as you like ot call it.

If you want to argue, then please go back to where you forgot the basic fundamentals.

Until you are capable of grasping "Economics 101". There is no reason for me to continue debating you.


Enlighten us oh Eienstein of Economics since Im missing the point.

Lets see you describe in detail how raising taxes is good for the economy. Lets see you explain the effects of taxes on a macroeconomic and microecomic scale with regards to supply, demand, and the money supply. Lets see you defend the notion that fiscal policy is better than monetary policy. Lets see you defend your notion, mentioned earlier in this thread, that the government should regulate the stock market. Come on now, dont be shy...

[Gan]

This is one area that the politicians need to keep their fingers out of. The first by-product of raising taxes is a slowing of the economy due to less public spending. People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation. Thats Economics 101.


^

You changed your post, still missed the point and still manage to cheapen the value of that "Economics" degree you like to flaunt. Fantastic.

I dont flaunt my degree, in fact I'm quick to point out that I"m not an economist. You need to refocus your selective reading glasses.

[Gan]

This is one area that the politicians need to keep their fingers out of. The first by-product of raising taxes is a slowing of the economy due to less public spending. People tend to save and not spend, starting a chain reaction that will raise prices and inflation. Thats Economics 101.


^

You changed your post, still missed the point and still manage to cheapen the value of that "Economics" degree you like to flaunt. Fantastic.

Actually that post remains unedited. Try again.

[xtc]

It would be nice to see politics kept out of economic debates.

[Daniel]

Enlighten us oh Eienstein of Economics since Im missing the point.


That the value of the dollar is not the concern here.

Deflation is an issue when it makes the terms of trade unattractive, slowing investment. That's unlikely to happen with the foreign exchange imbalance we currently have.

The issue at hand is whether or not a raise in taxes will result in the tanking of the real estate market, as per the original article.

The point is that a slow down in the housing market is the preferred outcome, and not to be avoided because it has been severely over inflated for some time. Trying to hold the housing market at it's inflated levels is not beneficial to the American economy.

Therefore, the argument about why taxes shouldn't be raised is a lame duck.

You get the result you want, at an added benefit to the USG.




Lets see you describe in detail how raising taxes is good for the economy. Lets see you explain the effects of taxes on a macroeconomic and microecomic scale with regards to supply, demand, and the money supply. Lets see you defend the notion that fiscal policy is better than monetary policy. Lets see you defend your notion, mentioned earlier in this thread, that the government should regulate the stock market. Come on now, dont be shy...



Sorry Ganalon. I'm not your economics 101 teacher. You might want to go speak with him.


P.s. The stock market is "regulated".

P.P.S. I never suggested that the government should "Control" (The word you were looking for) the stock market. I said the government has an interest in protecting the economy. That's a pretty large logical leap you made there.

[ElanthianSiren]

In the less money -less ability to hire etc, how do you account for a business like Wal*Mart that's already taken the measures you'd find often in a tax raising session:

1. Squeezing suppliers
2. Hiring part time to avoid paying benefits
3. Weasling around breaks etc.
4. Termination based on tenure.
5. Insert any that I've forgotten that Wal*Mart's currently being sued over.

Surely, the biggest US retailer wouldn't take those kinds of measures in the past few years unless they were warranted by the high taxes we're discussing. That may say something about the poster children for lower business taxes.

-M

[Gan]

The point is that a slow down in the housing market is the preferred outcome, and not to be avoided because it has been severely over inflated for some time. Trying to hold the housing market at it's inflated levels is not beneficial to the American economy.

The only person to talk about endorsing the slowdown in the housing market has been you. The discussion was about raising taxes, the article was about raising taxes. My point, to which you seem hellbent on arguing, has always been about raising taxes, period, thusly so is a bad idea.

PS. You're far from being the caliber of teaching anyone Economics 101. Stick to your day job.

[Daniel]

You mean we shouldn't rely on big business to take care of social issues?

Holy shit! You're Crazy!

[Gan]

In the less money -less ability to hire etc, how do you account for a business like Wal*Mart that's already taken the measures you'd find often in a tax raising session:

1. Squeezing suppliers
2. Hiring part time to avoid paying benefits
3. Weasling around breaks etc.
4. Termination based on tenure.
5. Insert any that I've forgotten that Wal*Mart's currently being sued over.

Surely, the biggest US retailer wouldn't take those kinds of measures in the past few years unless they were warranted by the high taxes we're discussing. That may say something about the poster children for lower business taxes.

-M

I'm guessing its a combination of the things you mentioned along with strategic passthrough costs to the customer, but at a rate that still makes Wal-Mart competetive even in the necessity market that they are in.

[Daniel]

he discussion was about raising taxes, the article was about raising taxes.

^

Read the Title of the Article.

Please.

[Daniel]

he discussion was about raising taxes, the article was about raising taxes.

^

Read the Title of the Article.

Please.

[Daniel]

PS. You're far from being the caliber of teaching anyone Economics 101. Stick to your day job.

Folks. You can't teach stupid like this. You gotta be born with it.

[Gan]

Folks. You can't teach stupid like this. You gotta be born with it.

I'm sure you've heard that a lot.

[Daniel]

Keep slinging those zingers Ganalon. It might make people look past your inability to read a fucking sentence and comprehend it.

[Gan]

No more than you inability to read for content and operate a simple bbs.

[Daniel]

Because you know... my not using the quote feature had everything to do with my inability and nothing at all to do with my Apathy.

Good one.

Reading for content= Comprehend.

Two points for you.

[Gan]

+1 more for you as well.

You're pretty good with the zingers too. Not that spelling nor simple operation of a bbs denotes intelligence, no matter how bent you are at emphasizing the former which just encourages me to point out the latter.

PS.. I'm not your vocabulary teacher either.

PSS... watching you get stirred up has entertained my afternoon. Thx!

[Daniel]

I'm real stirred up Ganalon. I'm bashing my computer against the wall as we speak, because you sure showed me how to operate this here "Billetin" board.

Care to re-cap *your* correction of my "Vocabulary"? Or did you I neglect to notice that you and PB are joined Penis to mouth?

You certainly didn't expand my knowledge of the term "Inflation".

[Gan]

I"m guessing you're stirred up because you are focusing more on petty insults and using cuss words in order to get your point across.

I"m guessing you're stirred up because in haste to post a rebuttal you're unable to even function on a bbs in clear and coherent posts.

And I'm guessing you're stirred up because you have failed to see where I corrected myself with the mistaken use of inflation instead of deflation which was clearly meant. Unless you seem to think people who make mistakes are 'stupid', even when they admit it themselves and offer corrective explanation.

Yea, you're probably not hitting your head on the keyboard yet (even if your posts look like you are), but I'm definatley under your skin, regardless of my casual spelling.

[Tromp]

Or did you I neglect to notice that you and PB are joined Penis to mouth?

Reading this sentenced amused me in oh so many ways. :love:

Please carry on....

[Daniel]

Lol.

Okay.

[Atlanteax]

Find a room already you two!

[Keller]

Taxes are the cost of civilization.

Be happy the top marginal rate is 35% and not 70% like it was 30 years ago.

Also, PB, a flat tax? Surely you're not serious.

Ideally we would have a consumption tax, but the administrative nightmare of switching from income to consumption would be too large to ever concieve of changing. Consumption tax would incentivize savings while allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves whether they needed that 42 ft yacht. A man can always dream.

[Daniel]

The problem with a consumption tax is that poor poeple tend to consume more than their richer counterparts. The reason being that you don't really have the ability to sock away a few hundred bucks when you are living pay check to pay check.

[Keller]

The problem with a consumption tax is that poor poeple tend to consume more than their richer counterparts. The reason being that you don't really have the ability to sock away a few hundred bucks when you are living pay check to pay check.

You can have a progressive consumption tax.

See http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/555607in.html

[Daniel]

Touche. When I have more time I'll read up, but my first reaction is that will be a nightmare to track and enforce.

[HarmNone]

I read McCaffery's book a year or so ago. I found it quite interesting, and very innovative. Trying to sell that idea here in the US, though, is going to be tough going, I fear.

[Apathy]

Because you know... my not using the quote feature had everything to do with my inability and nothing at all to do with my Apathy.

Good one.

Reading for content= Comprehend.

Two points for you.

I ain't your Apathy, bub.

Internet warriors, two shall meet, one shall be victorious!

p.s. - increase the estate tax, tax tobacco federally, and remove long-term unemployment welfare

[xtc]

Find a room already you two!

LOL I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Daniel]

I'd rather saw my dick off with a golf pencil.

[Artha]

You're so romantic.

[Gan]

I'd rather saw my dick off with a golf pencil.

Dont use a pencil, you might get the two confused.

[Gan]

You can have a progressive consumption tax.

See http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/555607in.html

This is probably the most radical tax reform idea I"m in favor of. The big problem is the offset of receipts when moving from arears receipts to real-time receipts. Unless they implement it right after April 15...

:thinking:

Edited to add: We already have a form of that here in Texas (state sales tax) which allows us not to be burdened with a state income tax. Of course obvious things are not taxed, such as food items, medicine. But everything else has a 7-8% tax associated with it when purchased.

[Alfster]

legalizing pot solves everything

[Ignot]

Haha, yeah right. The middle class eager to spend their extra $300 this christmas.


Middle class? That is just make-believe.