Are you better off now?

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Of course CBS never spins anything!

CBS is a major corporation owned and operated by capitalists. Of course they'd spin it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Of course CBS never spins anything!

Nor do the Bush Hating Lefties:

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

Despite the "jobless" nature of the current economic recovery, the first CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 2004, conducted Jan. 2-5, shows consumer optimism continuing to surge upward:

Consumer perceptions of the current economy are at their highest point in more than two years;
Consumer expectations for the future are at a four-year high; and
Nearly three out of four consumers say they are somewhat or very optimistic about the economy.

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course CBS never spins anything!

Nor do the Bush Hating Lefties:

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

Despite the "jobless" nature of the current economic recovery, the first CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 2004, conducted Jan. 2-5, shows consumer optimism continuing to surge upward:

Consumer perceptions of the current economy are at their highest point in more than two years;
Consumer expectations for the future are at a four-year high; and
Nearly three out of four consumers say they are somewhat or very optimistic about the economy.

I guess that explains the 1000 new jobs created in the previous month

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course CBS never spins anything!

Nor do the Bush Hating Lefties:

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

Despite the "jobless" nature of the current economic recovery, the first CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 2004, conducted Jan. 2-5, shows consumer optimism continuing to surge upward:

Consumer perceptions of the current economy are at their highest point in more than two years;
Consumer expectations for the future are at a four-year high; and
Nearly three out of four consumers say they are somewhat or very optimistic about the economy.

I guess that explains the 1000 new jobs created in the previous month

A basic course in economics will teach you it takes a while into an economic recovery before business's start to hire more people.
Of course it's a good thing Bush reduced the tax burden on wealthy business people so they could start to expand their companies which will eventually create the need for more employees. I know I plan on hiring more people this Spring.

[benny 0]

Quote

A basic course in economics will teach you it takes a while into an economic recovery before business's start to hire more people.
Of course it's a good thing Bush reduced the tax burden on wealthy business people so they could start to expand their companies which will eventually create the need for more employees. I know I plan on hiring more people this Spring.

Funny, I'm an economics major, and yes, you're right, a basic course in economics will teach you that. A more advanced course in economics will teach you that tax policy is about the least effective way to influence the economy and that deficits may just cause a little thing called "crowding out".

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

And once I hire those people, they will be paying income taxes, sales taxes and spending their money at other businesses that will then need to hire more people to keep up with increased sales.

Of course Bush could have just pissed the money away on a Liberal Utopian Social Transgression (LUST) instead.

[benny 0]

Quote

And once I hire those people, they will be paying income taxes, sales taxes and spending their money at other businesses that will then need to hire more people to keep up with increased sales.

Of course Bush could have just pissed the money away on a Liberal Utopian Social Transgression (LUST) instead.

Yes yes, we all know that greater employment leads to greater taxe revenues, although, as a business owner, you probably know that most of the increasd taxes are what? Payroll taxes. Hmm, how much did we cut those?

LUST, like "liberating" Iraq huh? Now there's a utopian idea if I ever heard of one. The only way Iraq ever becomes stable is if it's broken into several pieces, 1 for Kurds, 1 for shiites, 1 for sunnis, etc. etc..

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 2,426]

>And once I hire those people, they will be paying income taxes,
> sales taxes and spending their money at other businesses that will
> then need to hire more people to keep up with increased sales.

Ah yes. Trickle down economics, the panacea of the right wing. I remember the last time we tried that. From the AP:

----------------------------------

Reagan promised that the tax reduction would jump-start America's economy through the "supply-side" principle: i.e., the investor class would have more money to spend on factory and business expansions, creating jobs and causing money to " trickle down" to the working class.

Reagan said his cut would unleash "the dynamics of the free market," spurring growth, producing more federal revenue and balancing the U.S. budget by 1983.

Since tax reductions are immensely popular, Congress jumped on the bandwagon, even though then-Vice President George Bush previously had called supply-side "voodoo economics." A feeding frenzy occurred, with cliques of Congress members giving special write-offs to their favorite industries.

The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.

---------------------------------------

Sound familiar?

[benny 0]

And, as far as the "investor" class is concerned, check out this article:

Quote

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

November 20, 2003, Thursday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section C; Page 2; Column 1; Business/Financial Desk

LENGTH: 1000 words

HEADLINE: Economic Scene;
Which party in theWhite House means good times for stock investors?

BYLINE: By Hal R. Varian; Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and information management at the University of California at Berkeley.

BODY:
DOES the stock market do better when a Republican is president or when a Democrat is?

The answer is: It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats.

This perhaps surprising finding is examined by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, in an article titled "Political Cycles and the Stock Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return -- the difference between a broad index of stock prices (similar to the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate -- between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans -- a striking difference.

This nine-percentage-point excess can be broken down further into an average 5.3 percent higher real return for the stock market and a 3.7 percent lower return for Treasury bills under Democratic administrations.

This finding raises three other questions. First, is this just some data anomaly resulting from selective choice of sample or quirks of the analysis?

Second, if the effect is real, why don't investors take advantage of the predictable higher returns and buy stocks before elections that Democrats are likely to win, in that way pushing stock prices up and lowering returns? The third, and perhaps the most provocative, question: What is the economic rationale for the difference in returns?

Most Democratic administrations clearly had higher-than-average excess returns, with Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term (1937-41) being the only significant exception. Republicans have been associated with lower-than-average returns, with the only significant exception being Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term (1953-57).

The difference in returns persists even if one looks at subsamples. For example, if you break the sample in two at 1963, the Republicans still come out with lower returns in both periods.

What would cause such a large difference? One possibility is that Wall Street investors expect the Democrats to be bad for the market and sell their stocks before elections that the Democratic candidate is likely to win. Then, when the Democrats do not prove as bad as expected, stock prices rise again.

The authors, though, find that the data do not support this theory -- stock prices generally do not tend to decline before elections that Democrats win.

But this finding itself raises another puzzle. If returns are so much higher for Democratic presidents than Republican ones, shouldn't we see investors rushing to the market when a Democratic victory looks likely?

We don't see that happen, either. "In sum," the authors write, "the market seems to react very little, if at all, to presidential election news."

Here's another theory. Economic policies under Democratic administrations may tend to be more volatile than those under Republicans -- so investors demand higher returns to compensate them for the extra risk. A clever idea, but it is also contradicted by the evidence. If anything, the volatility of stock market returns is slightly higher under Republicans than under Democrats.

One interesting finding is that although both large and small companies do better under Democratic administrations, small companies do especially well, while larger ones do only a little better. The return on the smallest 10 percent of traded companies is 21 percent higher during Democratic administrations, while the return on the largest 10 percent is only 7.7 percent greater. What accounts for this difference?

We don't know.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a spurious correlation. As econometricians say, "If you torture the data hard enough, it will confess to anything." People have been looking for economic predictors of stock market behavior for decades, so it's not surprising that every now and then we find some correlations.

Still, presidents like to think -- or at least claim -- that they influence economic activity. So a finding that the party occupying the White House has an impact on stock market performance should mean something.

With respect to the questions asked above, Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov can give a firm answer only to the first: Stock market excess returns have definitely been higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

They also show that some tempting possible answers to the question of why investors don't take advantage of this difference do not work.

They do not try to answer the last question, but they conjecture that the fiscal and regulatory priorities of presidents offer a possible explanation.

Most provocatively, they suggest that the causality might go the other way, with market returns driving presidential elections. Perhaps voters feel wealthier when stock prices are high and then vote Republican; when stock prices are low, they vote for Democrats.

The Santa-Clara/Valkanov finding offers an attractive area of research for both economists and political scientists. But even if scholars eventually come up with a satisfying explanation, we are still left with the financial side of the puzzle: For at least 72 years, the stock market did far better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. How can it be that investors have failed to take advantage of this seemingly predictable pattern?

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov wrote the first draft of their paper in 1999, and they admit that they could have profited handsomely by selling stocks after the 2000 election. Alas, like most investors, they didn't sell at the most opportune time. Even finance professors sometimes misjudge the market.


http://www.nytimes.com

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>A feeding frenzy occurred, with cliques of Congress members giving special write-offs to their favorite industries.

And here's the winner. Isn't this the real problem? Different taxes for different groups? That means different incomes, that means special cuts for big businesses, it spans both parties.

For households, I like a single rate with exemptions. Nothing else. Either that, or take the total expense of the government and divide by the number of people and make everyone pay the same - hard to make that work though. Same rate is doable.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RyanofOZ 0]

Quote

Since Bush has taken office:

The economy has gotten worse.

The deficit has almost doubled.

The job market has gone from the best its been in 40 years to the worst its been in 25.

We have been PROVOKING a war in Iraq.

We've lost a few civil liberties.

He has neglected the health care and educational efforts of his predacessors.

And now he is focussing on things that aren't even on this planet. What the hell is going on with this guy?!!!

His father did a much better job. In my opinion he is not quite a BUSH, he's a SHRUB.

Sounds like you get the weekly Democratic finger pointing topics sheet. Not that all dems are bad, but you sound like a little girl that lost her binky. Open your eyes for gods sake! I am not even going to waste the time to counter all those points. Someone like you has no grasp on reality, and what it takes to get things done. I am sure you think Al Gore would have done a much better job haha. I bet you think Clinton had nothing to do with any of the current issues either? Grow up and look at the whole picture instead of twisting one side of a piece of information to suit your BS arguements. Bush may not be the best, but he actually has the balls to get things done, and doesnt take other countries crap.

Oz

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'm not going to get into a long protracted economics arguement. Suffice it to say that if spending isn't decreased, the effects of a tax cut are nullified.
And for your information, I'm mad as hell at GWB, AND CONGRESS for this drunken spending binge they've been on for the last 10-15 years.

[quade 3]

Quote

And for your information, I'm mad as hell at GWB, AND CONGRESS for this drunken spending binge they've been on for the last 10-15 years.

Mad enough to vote them out of office?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[benny 0]

Quote

For households, I like a single rate with exemptions. Nothing else. Either that, or take the total expense of the government and divide by the number of people and make everyone pay the same - hard to make that work though. Same rate is doable.

Ahh another flat-taxer... There is one real big reason that the rich should hold a greater share of the tax burden... They have so much more to lose.... If they don't like paying taxes, they can move (and by move I don't mean incorporate offshore)

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[rehmwa 2]

make the exemptions big enough and you still get your progressive scale - and selective overpopulation.

"they have so much more to lose" - I thought money wasn't everything.

Right out of college are ya?
I would just rather it was simple and even handed. Right now, there is no area of the tax code that doesn't cater to some special interest (rich or poor).
It's never one sided.

What kind of beer was that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,146]

The thing I don't like about the flat tax is that poor people necessarily spend a much larger amount of their income on necessities, which means that any tax is therefore a larger percentage of their "disposable" income.

Of course, the definition of necessity varies a lot. And one person's affordable palace is another's wouldn't-live-there hovel.

But if spending on food, shelter, and transportation takes 90% of your income, that 10% looks pretty doggone paltry. And if you exclude those, then you're already beginning the complications, because you have to come up with reasonable levels (my 1995 paid-off Mitsubishi gets better mileage and costs less than someone else's Hummer, right? So that would mean that I pay a tax penalty for choosing wisely if those expenses are exempted).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The thing I don't like about the flat tax is that poor people necessarily spend a much larger amount of their income on necessities, which means that any tax is therefore a larger percentage of their "disposable" income.

Of course, the definition of necessity varies a lot. And one person's affordable palace is another's wouldn't-live-there hovel.

But if spending on food, shelter, and transportation takes 90% of your income, that 10% looks pretty doggone paltry. And if you exclude those, then you're already beginning the complications, because you have to come up with reasonable levels (my 1995 paid-off Mitsubishi gets better mileage and costs less than someone else's Hummer, right? So that would mean that I pay a tax penalty for choosing wisely if those expenses are exempted).

Wendy W.

I believe the proposal put forward by Phil Graham would allow an exemption for the poor. I don't recall exactly what the income level was, but I was a supporter of his plan.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

And for your information, I'm mad as hell at GWB, AND CONGRESS for this drunken spending binge they've been on for the last 10-15 years.

Mad enough to vote them out of office?

To be perfectly honest with you Quade, I wish there was another "Republican Candidate". I was a Steve Forbes supporter originally but unfortunately the Presidential Elections process these days is more of a popularity contest than one based on substance. I can assure you, however it will be a VERY Cold Day in Hell before I will vote for a Democrat, especially these buffons running in 2004.

[rehmwa 2]

No matter what happens, you can always make it complicated even if it doesn't have to be.

If you make more, you should be able to buy, save, invest more.

Again, make the personal exemption big enough, and the poor have a significantly lower rate. But everyone gets the same exemption, everyone gets the same tax rate on the remaining income.....

As for your car example, we don't need to be micromanaging people's decision to that level. Sales taxes can be dealt with locally.

It's the individual's decisions on how they spend and save and they must consider the consequences of any decision. Your discussion leads down the road to making people who make more, pay more for the same stuff. That's goofy.

Next time you go out to lunch, insist that everyone lay out their gross income figures. Then insist you all pay accordingly. It's that simple.

For taxes, allowing anyone to pay nothing is very dangerous, nobody appreciates a free ride and it generates a bad mentality. Even contributing a little bit give ownership rather than dependence.

(I'm not poor now, but we were dirt poor when I was a kid so please don't play that card.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

No matter what happens, you can always make it complicated even if it doesn't have to be.

If you make more, you should be able to buy, save, invest more.

Again, make the personal exemption big enough, and the poor have a significantly lower rate. But everyone gets the same exemption, everyone gets the same tax rate on the remaining income.....

As for your car example, we don't need to be micromanaging people's decision to that level. Sales taxes can be dealt with locally.

It's the individual's decisions on how they spend and save and they must consider the consequences of any decision. Your discussion leads down the road to making people who make more, pay more for the same stuff. That's goofy.

Next time you go out to lunch, insist that everyone lay out their gross income figures. Then insist you all pay accordingly. It's that simple.

For taxes, allowing anyone to pay nothing is very dangerous, nobody appreciates a free ride and it generates a bad mentality. Even contributing a little bit give ownership rather than dependence.

(I'm not poor now, but we were dirt poor when I was a kid so please don't play that card.)

Not a good analogy at all.

If I went to lunch with a glutton who ate 7 courses while I had a soup and a roll, I would be pissed if they insisted on an equal division of the bill.

The rich (and I probably just scrape into the low end of that category) SHOULD pay more because they (we) receive and use a greater share of the nation's resources in exchange.

As part of my job I regularly get to meet a number of the super rich (like net worth of $100M or more), and they make out like gangbusters. They really are different from you and me.

What GWB and the Republicans have done very cleverly is convince a number of folks who are only modestly well off that they are the deserving rich and that the poor are out to steal their lunch. In fact the middle class is getting screwed.

When I add everything up, despite a 6 figure salary my Bush tax cut has not compensated for the increased cost of energy (thanks, Enron) and health care. I am, in fact, worse off now than I was 5 years ago.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,426]

>I believe the proposal put forward by Phil Graham would allow
>an exemption for the poor.

. . . and you have the 'poor' loophole. I'm sure a clever accountant could get a retired millionaire into a simple loophole like "makes X dollars a year" if the proceeds from his 401k are not counted towards his income. So you add a thing that says " . . but not if you have more than $100K in the bank." So the rich switch to real estate holdings and dodge the tax that way.

The problem with all these tax schemes is that we live in a capitalist society. Taxes are a penalty. So people will take every single possible opportunity - including intentionally losing money - to pay less in taxes. I would be in favor of a flat sales tax (for example) but I fear that that would simply result in a whole new series of loopholes as politicians scramble to pay back their special interests and accountants find ways to avoid labeling a transaction a "sale." (Barter anyone?)

To me, taxes should be fairly simple. Pick just three coefficients - slope, offset and inflection - and you could come up with a curve that will describe just about any income tax. Want to make it easier on the poor? Set the origin to zero at X income; that way the poor (who make less than X) pay no tax. Want to make it easier on low-income people? Increase the inflection, so the curve remains pretty flat at low income levels, then rises dramatically at higher income levels. Want to make it flatter? Increase the origin, set the inflection to zero, and make the slope either zero (for a true flat tax) or to a small amount (to make it pretty flat, but to still benefit the poor a bit.)

Of course that would require math.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The rich (and I probably just scrape into the low end of that category) SHOULD pay more because they (we) receive and use a greater share of the nation's resources in exchange..

Do you really use more of the resources? I'd love to see a study here that DOESN'T involve special tax breaks. (remember, this part of the thread was started by me noting that there are too many loopholes and special interest exceptions) Just the basics: Everyone gets benefit from defense of the country. Everyone can visit a state park. Everyone can have their childres go to school (citizens). I don't know many rich that get free food, shelter, etc from the government. Aren't most 'social' programs only allowed for those who aren't rich?

Maybe if the government didn't have their fingers in so many areas, your issues would go away just as easy as my issues.

I very much doubt you are guilty for scraping into the rich category and I hope nobody tries that line. It's cheap and pointless, just like saying someone CAN'T understand the poor just because they aren't one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Want to make it easier on the poor? Set the origin to zero at X income; that way the poor (who make less than X) pay no tax.

Of course make it easier, but never zero. Taxes are ownership of the country. Even if they pay just a little bit, it would make for better citizens.

What about Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, you can't vote unless you've served in the military? How would this crowd react to that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

>Want to make it easier on the poor? Set the origin to zero at X income; that way the poor (who make less than X) pay no tax.

Of course make it easier, but never zero. Taxes are ownership of the country. Even if they pay just a little bit, it would make for better citizens.

What about Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, you can't vote unless you've served in the military? How would this crowd react to that?

It's a stupid idea because it would lead to results like the fate of Henry Moseley in WWI. Some people are too valuable to use as cannon fodder. Fortunately most governments have learned that lesson.

If you made it "made a significant contribution to the nation" I'd agree.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I agree we need a revamp of our current tax laws. I'm really pissed the discussions about reforming them we were having in 1994-1996 have faded into oblivion. I think all Americans and even non-citizens should be taxed if they are deriving benefits from America. I include in this that the poor should also pay taxes. I think one of the reasons we have some of the social problems we do is because people don't feel "involved" in America. The non-involvement fosters resentment and hostility towards "the system".

If everyone in America had to write a check every month to pay their taxes, like I do, peoples view of taxation and how oppresive it really is, would change quickly and dramatically.

People would then start to understand why some of us seek out tax shelters and attempt to legally avoid paying taxes. I can tell you I employ a "Forensic CPA" so I can stay right on the borderline of legalities.

If you've ever had problems with the IRS, you would understand how nightmarish the tax code in this country really is and my guess is you would have a more empathetic attitude towards businesses that walk the borderline regarding taxes and would feel the way many of us who have worked towards tax reform do. Believe me, it's one thing to only have to file personal income taxes and deal with an IRA and other investments. It's quite another to operate a business. Not complaining because if it was much worse, I'd just walk away from it and go to work for someone else, but to me, thats the worst possible senario.